Motorcycles: Training

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of motorcycle approved training bodies which were operating in April (a) 2008 and (b) 2012.

Stephen Hammond: The Driving Standards Agency's (DSA's) reporting systems do not allow for retrospective interrogation for certain data sets. Therefore, no data is available for the number of Approved Training Bodies (ATBs) in 2008. However, in October 2009, there were 696 ATBs registered with the DSA.
	The number of ATBs that are currently registered is 633.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, column 532W, on West Coast railway line: franchises, what other firms were considered for the work taken on by WS Atkins; and what range of fees was submitted by other bidders.

Patrick McLoughlin: Bids for this work were received from Atkins, Aecom, Booz & Co, Halcrow, Leigh Fisher, Mott Macdonald and URS Scott Wilson. Capped maximum fee bids were made against a number of work packages. The fees bid are commercially confidential.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, column 532W, on West Coast line franchises, which other legal firms were involved in the competitive procurement process referred to; and what the range of fees was submitted by the other bidders for work on the Intercity West Coast franchise competition.

Patrick McLoughlin: All of the firms listed at Lot 8 (Major Projects) of the Government Procurement Service Legal Services Framework were given the opportunity to participate. Bids were received from Eversheds LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Norton Rose LLP. Capped maximum fee bids were made against specified scenarios. The fee bids are commercially confidential.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the staff provided by Eversheds LLP working for his Department on the Intercity West Coast franchise competition were engaged in (a) writing the invitation to tender and (b) awarding the franchise.

Patrick McLoughlin: The categorisation provided in the question does not exactly match the categories used to record this information. However, Department records show that eight Eversheds LLP staff worked on the initiation and specification of the franchise, and 17 worked on the procurement of the franchise.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the WS Atkins staff working for his Department on the Intercity West Coast franchise competition were engaged in (a) writing the invitation to tender, (b) advising his Department on bids and (c) evaluating bids.

Patrick McLoughlin: The categorisation provided in the question does not exactly match the categories used to record this information. However, Department records show that 20 WS Atkins staff worked on the initiation and specification of the franchise, and 20 worked on the procurement of the franchise.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  what steps were taken by (a) officials and (b) Ministers in his Department to ensure that the amount of the subordinated loan facility (SLF) required of bidders for the Intercity West Coast franchise competition was determined in line with his Department's own SLF guidance;
	(2)  with reference to paragraph 5.9 of the Laidlaw Review into the collapse of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition, how many officials of each grade determined the subordinated loan facility levels for bids; and when Ministers were (a) consulted on, (b) informed of and (c) asked to endorse the levels;
	(3)  with reference to paragraph 5.3.7 of the Laidlaw Review into the collapse of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition, what the grades were of the officials who decided to accept the risk of challenge identified; and when Ministers were (a) consulted, (b) informed and (c) asked to confirm the recommendation of such officials;
	(4)  what the grade was of the most senior official in his Department who had the awareness referred to in paragraphs 5.3.1 to 5.3.4 of the Laidlaw Review into the collapse of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition; and when Ministers were informed of the risks identified;
	(5)  which Minister approved the quality assurance processes for the operation of the Intercity West Coast franchise competition; and on what date such decisions were taken;
	(6)  which Minister approved the arrangements for the governance structure to be applied to the InterCity West Coast franchise competition; and when such a decision was made;
	(7)  which Minister approved the structure and personnel arrangements for the InterCity West Coast franchise project team; and when such decisions were taken;
	(8)  whether his Department considered that the effect of the reorganisation of the departmental structure which took place between December 2010 and May 2011 was a risk factor when conducting the InterCity West Coast franchise competition; and what steps were taken to mitigate against such risks;
	(9)  when Ministers in his Department decided that the GDP model should be the mechanism for determining the annual franchise payment that the franchisee should pay his Department in the InterCity West Coast franchise competition;
	(10)  when Ministers in his Department decided that there should be a minimum subordinated loan facility requirement in the new rail franchise process.

Patrick McLoughlin: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 15 October 2012, Official Report, columns 46-47, along with the terms of reference of the Laidlaw inquiry and a copy of his interim report, both of which have been deposited in the Libraries of the House. These issues will be considered by the Laidlaw inquiry. I am not going to prejudice the findings of his final report, which is due by the end of November.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to conduct an e-mail capture and review in order to assist the conduct of the Laidlaw Inquiry.

Patrick McLoughlin: I refer the honourable Member to my statement of State to the House on 15 October 2012, Official Report, columns 46-47, along with the terms of reference of the Laidlaw Inquiry and a copy of his interim report, both of which have been deposited in the Libraries of the House. The Laidlaw Inquiry interim report stated that it had not instructed the Department to conduct an email capture and review at that stage. The Laidlaw Inquiry has subsequently requested an email capture and the Department is co-operating with the Laidlaw Inquiry on this issue.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by his Department on investigations into the suspensions of three employees following the collapse of the InterCity West Coast franchise competition; and when he expects such investigations to be completed.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Permanent Secretary asked Bill Stow to lead an independent investigation to establish the facts about the roles individuals had in relation to the letting of the Inter City West Coast Franchise. The Investigation is working as quickly and diligently as possible and will form the basis for a report to the Permanent Secretary, which will be submitted as soon as he is able to.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date his Department will forward to the Laidlaw inquiry all the documentation which it has requested in order to complete its work into the reasons for the cancellation of the West Coast franchise competition.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Laidlaw inquiry is an ongoing inquiry and requests for information held by the Department have been and continue to be made at regular intervals. The Department for Transport endeavours to meet all of these requests as soon as possible. The inquiry team has had the full co-operation of the Department throughout the 10 day initial review process and this remains the case.

West Coast Railway Line: Franchises

Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  at what level in his Department the decision was taken not to waive legal professional privilege in respect of co-operation with the Laidlaw inquiry into the West Coast franchise competition;
	(2)  for what reason his Department has declined to waive its legal professional privilege in respect of Eversheds LLP for the purposes of assisting the Laidlaw inquiry into the West Coast franchise competition;
	(3)  if he will waive the legal professional privilege Eversheds LLP owe to his Department in order to pass relevant documentation to the Laidlaw inquiry in respect of the West Coast franchise competition.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Department is considering the basis upon which it can facilitate the giving of evidence by Eversheds to the inquiry. Some discussions between the inquiry and Eversheds have already taken place.
	Communications between legal advisers and their clients—generally—are protected by legal privilege. For the Department to seek to protect the confidentiality of legal advice provided to it is, therefore, to be expected. By the same token, and in circumstances where litigation is extant or may be contemplated, the Department will want to consider the importance of retaining privilege and the implications of waiving it.
	Advice in relation to privilege issues is provided by the Department's General Counsel, taking advice from independent counsel as appropriate. Decisions on whether to waive privilege are taken by Ministers or administrators.

Bulent Ecevit

Graham Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what files his Department holds on Bülent Ecevit.

David Lidington: In line with standard departmental recordkeeping policy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does hold files that may contain information relating to Bulent Ecevit. However, a full list of files is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Cayman Islands

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether (a) officials, (b) staff, (c) contractors and (d) people under employment of his Department will be involved with the independent assessment ordered by the Cayman Turtle Farm into reports of animal cruelty.

Mark Simmonds: No one under the employment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be involved in the independent assessment commissioned by the Cayman Turtle Farm into allegations of inhumane turtle husbandry at the farm.
	Responsibility for the Cayman Turtle Farm rests with the Cayman Islands Government. We understand that the Cayman Islands Government is still in the process of organising the assessment, and selecting the people who will carry it out.
	We are aware that the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has conducted an investigation into the Turtle Farm, and that it has recently made its findings public. The British Government places great importance on conserving the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories and takes seriously reports of animal cruelty throughout the world. We understand the farm has carried out a review of its operations and found no basis for WSPA's allegations; and that the independent assessment will place in December.
	We encourage WSPA, the management of the farm and the Cayman Islands Government to continue to engage constructively.

Cayman Islands

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the outcome of the review undertaken by the Cayman Turtle Farm following reports of animal cruelty by the World Society for the Protection of Animals; and whether he plans to take any further steps.

Mark Simmonds: Responsibility for the Cayman Turtle Farm rests with the Cayman Islands Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not seen the internal review that has been carried out by the Cayman Turtle Farm following allegations of inhumane turtle husbandry at the farm made by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).
	The British Government places great importance on conserving the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories and takes seriously reports of animal cruelty throughout the world. We understand the farm has carried out a review of its operations and found no basis for WSPA's allegations. The farm itself has ordered that an independent assessment take place in December. We encourage WSPA, the management of the farm and the Cayman Islands Government to continue to engage constructively.

Iceland

Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 
	(1)  whether his Department has given consideration to an exchange of Icelandic territory or property with the UK in return for the writing off of outstanding loans from that country;
	(2)  if he will discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence the potential benefits of exchanging Icelandic territory or property for outstanding loans from that country.

David Lidington: Iceland has not made such a proposal. Nor has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office given consideration to such an exchange. The UK Government, like the Icelandic Government, are awaiting the ruling of the European Free Trade Area Court. With regard to settling the outstanding loans, I refer my hon. friend to the answer given to him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), on 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 621W.

Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry

Chris Bryant: To ask the Prime Minister whether he was asked to provide a witness statement and documents to the Leveson Inquiry under Section 21(2) of the Enquiries Act 2005.

David Cameron: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 5 November 2012, Official Report, column 453W.

Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry

Chris Bryant: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, columns 449-50W, on Leveson Inquiry, how often he has (a) corresponded with and (b) spoken to Andy Coulson since he left No. 10 Downing Street.

David Cameron: I refer the hon. Member to the Downing street press conference I gave on Friday 8 July 2011. A transcript of the press conference is available on the No. 10 website:
	http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-press-conference/

Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry

Chris Bryant: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 19 October 2012, Official Report, columns 449-50W, on Leveson Inquiry, how many texts, emails and other forms of correspondence between his Office and News International he reviewed when responding to the Leveson Inquiry.

David Cameron: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 31 October 2012, Official Report, column 230.

Afghanistan

David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians have been killed or injured in drone strikes undertaken by the RAF since operations commenced in Afghanistan.

Andrew Robathan: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), on 26 June 2012, Official Report, column 187W, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff).

Defence: Procurement

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many projects being delivered by (a) Babcock, (b) Boeing, (c) Cobham, (d) European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, (e) Finmeccanica, (f) General Dynamics, (g) Kellogg-Brown-Root, (h) Lockhead Martin, (i) Marshall Aerospace, (j) Northrup Grumman, (k) Rolls-Royce, (l) Thales and (m) Ultra Electronics for his Department are overrunning in (i) time and (ii) budget; and where each project is located.

Peter Luff: The information will take time to collate. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.
	Substantive answer from Philip Dunne to A ngus Robertson:
	My predecessor undertook to write to you in his answer of 10 July 2012 (Official Report, column 199W) regarding your parliamentary question about Defence projects.
	The following table demonstrates the number of procurement and support projects managed by Defence Equipment and Support involving the contractors you asked about where the projects are presently considered to be overrunning regarding time or budget.
	Performance against contract can be affected by a number of reasons not all of which are in the contractor's control. For the purpose of answering this question these contracts have been limited to those with a value of £1 million or more, and where the Ministry of Defence has let a contract directly to the named company as a Prime Contractor. The locations of where the contractors are carrying out the work are also set out in the table.
	
		
			 Table 1: Companies overrunning in time and budget 
			 Company No. of contracts over-running in time Location No. of contracts over budget Location 
			 Babcock 1 HMNB Devonport 0 — 
			 Boeing 1 Gosport and Philadelphia UK 0 — 
			 Cobham 2 Durham and Bournemouth 2 Durham and Bournemouth 
			 European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company 0 — 0 — 
			 Finmeccanica 2 Edinburgh and Basildon 1 Luton 
			 General Dynamics 0 — 0 — 
			 Kellogg-Brown-Root 1 Leatherhead 0 — 
			 Lockheed Martin. 2 Farnborough and Ampthill 3 Orlando, USA, Farnborough and Ampthill 
			 Marshall Aerospace 0 — 0 — 
			 Northrup Grumman 1 Coventry 0 — 
			 Rolls-Royce 2 Filton and Winsford 1 Cambridge 
			 Thales 4 Belfast and Crawley 1 Crawley 
			 Ultra Electronics 2 Greenford and Loud water 1 Greenford

Defence: Procurement

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which projects have had their in-service dates deferred since May 2010.

Philip Dunne: holding answer 2 November 2012
	I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 15 October 2012, Official Report, columns 31-32W, to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck).

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Joint Strike Fighters he plans would be deployable at any one time.

Philip Dunne: holding answer 1 November 2012
	The number of Lightning II aircraft available to deploy at any one time will depend on how many aircraft are procured. The Government will not take a final decision until the strategic defence and security review in 2015, at the earliest.

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected unit cost is of each Joint Strike Fighter which his Department plans to purchase.

Philip Dunne: holding answer 1 November 2012
	I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), on 30 April 2012, Official Report, column 1140W.

Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

Tobias Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 809W, on joint strike fighter aircraft, when the decision on the exact mix of weapons to be used on the F35-B will be taken.

Philip Dunne: holding answer 2 November 2012
	I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 23 October 2012, Official Report, column 809W.

Libya

Tobias Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  when the agreement to forward-base Storm Shadow missiles at Gioia del Colle during Operation Ellamy was signed;
	(2)  whether Storm Shadow missiles were forward-based for use by Tornado at the Gioia del Colle air base in Italy.

Andrew Robathan: holding answer 1 and 2 November 2012
	During Operation Ellamy last year, Storm Shadow missiles were forward-based at Gioia del Colle airbase in Italy. Agreement to base munitions in Gioia del Colle was covered by a pre-existing government to government arrangement signed in 2004.

Marine Sciences

Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much (a) his Department, (b) its non-departmental public bodies and (c) its Executive agencies spent on marine sciences in (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12; and what spending for each is forecast in (A) 2012-13 and (B) 2013-14.

Philip Dunne: The Ministry of Defence, its non-departmental public bodies and Executive agencies have not spent and do not forecast any spending on marine science.

Somalia

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are attached to Headquarter Operation Atlanta; and what the (a) rank and (b) duty is of each such person.

Andrew Robathan: holding answer 2 November 2012
	Forty nine UK service personnel are currently attached to the Operational Headquarters of the EU's Operation Atalanta. The military personnel by rank and roles are shown in the following table. I am withholding the actual number of personnel at each rank as it contains personal data which cannot be released.
	
		
			 Rank Roles 
			 Rear Admiral Operational Commander 
			 Captain Command Support 
			 Commander Command Support, Liaison 
			 Squadron Leader Operations 
			 Lieutenant Commander Operations, Intelligence, Command Support, Media Officer 
			 Major Media Officer, Command Support 
			 Lieutenant Legal Advisor, Command Support, Communications Support, Medical Support, Logistics Support 
			 Warrant Officer Communications Support 
			 Chief Petty Officer Engineer 
			 Petty Officer Operations, Analysts, Information Support, Clerks, Command Support 
			 Leading Hand Operations, Information Support, Communications Support, Intelligence 
			 Lance Corporal Analyst 
			 Senior Aircraftman Communications Support 
			 Able Seamen Personal Assistants, Clerks, Communications Support, Analysts

Trident

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it remains his policy that the development costs of the replacement for Trident will be met from the core defence budget.

Andrew Robathan: I refer the right hon. Member to the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 14 May 2012, Official Report, column 263, in which he stated that the successor nuclear deterrent is included within the core programme.

United Arab Emirates

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the nature and extent is of the Defence Co-operation Agreements signed between the UK and the United Arab Emirates; and if he will place in the Library a copy of those agreements.

Andrew Murrison: holding answer 5 November 2012
	The Defence Co-Operation Accord signed between the UK and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 1996 provides a framework for current and future defence engagement activity including training and capacity building in order to enhance the stability of the wider region. There are a number of short complementary agreements, for example relating to Ministry of Defence intellectual property. We have had a long-standing maritime presence off the UAE with continuous Royal Navy patrols in the Gulf since the 1980s protecting Britain's interests. We also regularly conduct joint air exercises with our Emirati counterparts. It is not normal practice to publish such agreements, or to place copies in the Library of the House.

Broadband

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 16 October 2012, Official Report, column 259W, on broadband, if she will publish an assessment of the likelihood of the UK meeting its target on the proportion of premises to be covered by superfast broadband.

Edward Vaizey: holding answer 23 October 2012
	The Government remains confident that the target of ensuring 90% of premises have access to superfast broadband will be achieved, as part of the objective of having the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015.

Broadband: Rural Areas

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether she proposes that the Independent Assurance review of networks procured under the BDUK rural procurement process will be made public.

Edward Vaizey: The full report from the Independent Assurance Review will be shared with the National Audit Office and relevant suppliers appointed to the Broadband Delivery Framework. A summary report will be shared with those local authorities that have initiated call-off procurements using the Framework. At that stage the reports will not be made available to the general public because they will contain commercially sensitive information sourced from a number of different contracts.

Crimes of Violence: Females

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport with reference to the Government's action plan on violence against women and girls, what steps she is taking with media regulators and industry stakeholders to tackle the inappropriate portrayal of women and children; by what means she is communicating the guidance for journalists on reporting issues relating to violence against women, as set out in the action plan; what the reasons are for the time taken to implement the action plan; and if she will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: The Department meets regularly with media regulators, including Ofcom, and industry stakeholders, to discuss a range of issues. We have worked closely (alongside the Department for Education) with the sector on the implementation of the ‘Letting Children Be Children’ report, and will continue to address any other issues concerning the inappropriate portrayal of women and girls should the evidence of a problem in this area come to light.
	Draft guidance has been produced by Against Violence and Abuse who are currently liaising with the National Union of Journalists to agree sign off, after which guidance will be published.

Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry

Chris Bryant: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport which Ministers of her Department who were witnesses to the Leveson Inquiry were required by notice to provide answers and material under Section 21(2) of the Enquiries Act 2005.

Maria Miller: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 November 2012, Official Report, column 482W.

Mass Media

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport which newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives she has met since 1 July 2012.

Edward Vaizey: The Department regularly publishes details of ministerial meetings with outside interest groups including newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives. Full details of which can be found at the following link:
	http://www.transparency.culture.gov.uk/category/other/meetings/
	Since being appointed, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), has met with Lord Black, Chris Blackhurst and James Harding.

Public Libraries: Closures

Bill Esterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effect on pensioners, people with disabilities and people on low incomes of the closure of libraries in (a) Sefton Central constituency and (b) England.

Edward Vaizey: The Department is aware of Sefton council's plans for their library service, including their assessment of local need, and continues to monitor on an on-going basis proposed changes to public library services across England. The Department takes very seriously compliance by local authorities with their statutory duty to understand the local needs for library services and to provide a comprehensive and efficient service to match those needs.

Asylum: Democratic Republic of Congo

Paul Blomfield: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report into the treatment of failed asylum seekers upon their return to Democratic Republic of Congo will be published; and how she plans to make this report available.

Mark Harper: The UK Border Agency will publish a country policy bulletin for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on its web site this month. This will confirm the Agency's position on returns to the DRC, following allegations made of mistreatment, amounting to torture, of returnees from the UK.

Crime: Cumbria

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many incidences of violence against a person there have been for each type of offence in (a)  Barrow and Furness constituency and (b)  Cumbria in each of the last five years;
	(2)  how many drug offences there were in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years, by the nature of the offence;
	(3)  how many instances of criminal damage there were in (a) Barrow and Furness constituency and (b) Cumbria in each of the last five years, by the nature of the offence.

Jeremy Browne: Statistics are not available for the constituency of Barrow and Furness. The available information relates to offences recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and is given in the table along with the same offences for Cumbria police force area. Offences are given for violence against the person, criminal damage and drug offence groups broken down by offence classification.
	
		
			 Offences of violence against the person, criminal damage and drug offences recorded in the combined Community Safety Partnership areas of Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland and Cumbria police force area 
			   Barrow in Furness and South Lakeland Cumbria 
			 Offence code Offence description 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 
			 1 Murder(1, 2)           
			 4.1 Manslaughter(1, 2) 1 0 0 3 1 3 4 0 16 1 
			 4.2 Infanticide(1, 2)           
			 2 Attempted murder 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 22 0 
			 4.3 Intentional destruction of viable unborn child 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 4.4 Causing death by dangerous driving(2)  0 1 1 0  2 4 2 1 
			 4.6 Causing death by careless driving when(2) 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			  under the influence of drink or drugs(2)  0 0 0 1  0 0 1 2 
			 4.8 Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving(2)  0 0 1 3  0 1 2 5 
			             
			 5 More serious wounding or other act endangering life 16 n/a n/a n/a n/a 57 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 5A Inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent n/a 29 23 24 26 n/a 88 68 90 81 
			 5B Use of substance or object to endanger life n/a 2 0 0 0 n/a 7 7 2 3 
			 5C Possession of items to endanger life n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 3 0 0 0 
			             
			 8F Inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) without intent n/a 45 46 40 37 n/a 113 129 126 126 
			 8H Racially or religiously aggravated inflicting GBH without intent n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 1 1 
			 37.1 Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 4.7 Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 4.9 Causing death by driving: unlicensed drivers, etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 4.10 Corporate manslaughter n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 
			 8A Less serious wounding 1,305 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,759 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 8G Actual bodily harm (ABH) and other injury n/a 1,129 975 879 928 n/a 3,044 2,765 2,555 2,528 
			 8D Racially or religiously aggravated less serious wounding 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 8J Racially or religiously aggravated ABH or other injury n/a 2 5 2 3 n/a 7 14 5 12 
			 8K Poisoning or female genital mutilation n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 2 1 1 
			             
			  Violence against the person—with injury 1,324 1,208 1,050 950 999 3,836 3,270 2,991 2,823 2,761 
			             
			 3 Threat or conspiracy to murder 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 3A Conspiracy to murder n/a 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 1 0 
			 3B Threats to kill n/a 9 6 15 11 n/a 33 34 46 33 
			 6 Endangering railway passengers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 7 Endangering life at sea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 8B Possession of weapons 74 n/a n/a n/a n/a 228 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 10A Possession of firearms with intent n/a 2 3 1 1 n/a 7 10 6 2 
			 10C Possession of other weapons n/a 35 35 18 19 n/a 103 93 66 64 
			 10D Possession of article with blade or point n/a 35 35 28 34 n/a 106 101 98 88 
			 8C Harassment/Public fear, alarm or distress 505 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,641 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 8L Harassment n/a 58 109 91 121 n/a 142 258 274 319 
			 9A Public fear, alarm or distress n/a 416 343 281 275 n/a 1,597 1,310 1,186 1,114 
			 8E Racially or religiously aggravated harassment/public fear, etc. 49 n/a n/a n/a n/a 155 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 8M Racially or religiously aggravated harassment n/a 1 3 5 4 n/a 5 7 17 13 
			 9B Racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress n/a 56 47 42 44 n/a 150 137 101 118 
			 11 Cruelty to and neglect of children 26 26 19 21 16 50 54 55 60 80 
			 12 Abandoning a child under the age of two years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 13 Child abduction 2 0 1 3 1 4 0 8 7 7 
			 14 Procuring illegal abortion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 
			 104 Assault without injury on a constable 102 62 56 51 49 256 191 160 172 157 
		
	
	
		
			 105A Assault without injury 512 457 468 457 506 1,843 1,444 1,416 1,420 1,529 
			 105B Racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury 5 4 3 2 7 15 11 16 6 12 
			             
			  Violence against the person—without injury 1,279 1,161 1,128 1,015 1,088 4,219 3,843 3,605 3,461 3,536 
			             
			  Total violence against the person offences 2,603 2,369 2,178 1,965 2,087 8,055 7,113 6,596 6,284 6,297 
			             
			 56 Arson 109 n/a n/a n/a n/a 355 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 56A Arson endangering life n/a 1 6 5 2 n/a 10 15 18 20 
			 56B Arson not endangering life n/a 93 65 48 51 n/a 281 200 167 176 
			 58A Criminal damage to a dwelling 665 605 520 455 396 2,567 2,204 1,759 1,633 1,466 
			 58B Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling 505 419 361 332 282 1,614 1,201 1,023 889 755 
			 58C Criminal damage to a vehicle 1,716 1,388 1,164 1,169 1,046 5,144 3,978 3,339 3,081 2,881 
			 58D Other criminal damage 568 454 393 372 292 1,691 1,265 1,025 1,065 946 
			 58E Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage to a dwelling 0 1 0 2 0 2 4 4 3 3 
			 58F Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling 0 3 1 1 1 0 4 6 3 3 
			 58G Racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage to a vehicle 1 3 2 1 2 2 5 4 3 3 
			 58H Racially or religiously aggravated other criminal damage 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 4 1 
			 59 Threat etc. to commit criminal damage 15 19 15 18 13 47 41 51 50 51 
			             
			  Total criminal damage offences 3,579 2,987 2,527 2,405 2,085 11,425 8,995 7,426 6,916 6,305 
			             
			 92A Trafficking in controlled drugs 122 152 109 140 71 329 363 349 304 276 
			 92C Other drug offences 4 6 3 3 3 21 23 10 11 9 
			 92D Possession of controlled drugs (excluding cannabis) 165 127 119 115 84 559 539 491 550 550 
			 92E Possession of controlled drugs (cannabis) 228 176 248 255 251 675 631 834 945 984 
			             
			  Total drug offences 519 461 479 513 409 1,584 1,556 1,684 1,810 1,819 
			 n/a = Data not available. (1) Homicide. (2) Indicates brace. Note: Further information on classification changes can be found in the notes to Table A4 published here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-265883

Driving Under Influence: Drugs

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what recent assessment her Department has made of the accuracy of drug driving testing devices in terms of identifying whether a driver (a) is driving under the influence of an illegal drug, (b) is driving while taking prescribed medication and (c) has impaired driving; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what progress her Department has made in developing the type approval process for drug driving devices; and if she will make a statement;
	(3)  what discussions she has had with (a) Ministerial colleagues, (b) external stakeholders, (c) her Australian counterpart and (d) other overseas counterparts on the implementation in the UK of devices to detect drug-driving; and if she will make a statement.

Jeremy Browne: In 2011, the Home Office published a Guide to Type Approval Procedures for Preliminary Drug Testing Devices used for transport law enforcement in Great Britain. This guide defines the requirements a preliminary drug testing device will need to meet in order to be considered for type approval together with the laboratory and other tests to which it will be subject. The guide was prepared by Home Office scientific advisers, taking full account of experience in other countries and the views of manufacturers, the police and independent experts.
	Once approved the devices will be available for use in determining whether a driver might have particular potentially impairing drugs in his or her body, whether or not those drugs are controlled, prescribed or available over the counter. If a test result is positive a blood specimen will then be taken to provide evidence for a possible prosecution. It will be for the courts to decide if the person has committed a drug driving offence.
	The Home Office is currently in the process of testing a number of drug screening devices to be used in police stations. The aim is for any devices which successfully pass all the tests to be type approved by the end of 2012.

Female Genital Mutilation

Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of girls being taken out of the country to have female genital mutilation performed.

Jeremy Browne: The prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the UK is difficult to estimate because of the hidden nature of the crime. A study based on 2001 census data suggested that over 20,000 girls under 15 could be at high risk of FGM in England and Wales.

Police: Powers

Ben Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the police defines the use of warranted power; and how that definition applies to the activities of officers on restricted duties.

Damian Green: 'Warranted power' and 'restricted duty' are not terms which are defined in legislation. Police officers are attested under section 29 of the Police Act 1996 on appointment, and they then have all the powers of a constable by virtue of section 30. The specific powers are set out in other legislation, notably the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
	It is for the chief officer of the police force to decide whether it is appropriate for an officer's duties to be restricted in some way to take account of either a particular physical condition, while an allegation of misconduct is being investigated or where disciplinary proceedings are pending. Being placed on restricted duties may limit the activities an officer undertakes in the course of his job, but does not remove the powers that they have by virtue of being a constable.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of terrorism prevention and investigation measures on preventing terrorist-related activities;
	(2)  how many people are currently subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

James Brokenshire: The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 allows the Secretary of State to impose a powerful range of measures to protect the public from a small number of individual terrorists who we cannot yet prosecute or deport. These powers are part of a package, with substantial extra resources for the police and Security Service, which may increase the opportunities for the collection of evidence that may be used in a prosecution.
	The Director General of the Security Service has said that he is content that the overall TPIM package mitigates risk.
	In accordance with section 19 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), reports to Parliament each quarter on the exercise of her powers under that Act.
	The most recent quarterly report, published on 7 September 2012, confirmed that as of the end of the reporting period (31 August 2012) nine individuals were subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The next reporting period ends on 30 November 2012.

Affordable Housing

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many affordable homes he estimates will not be built as a result of implementation of Clause 5 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill; and how many affordable homes he estimates will be built elsewhere as a result of the funding recently announced by his Department.

Nicholas Boles: holding answer 1 November 2012
	Unrealistic Section 106 agreements do not build houses. Our package of planning and housing measures will help ensure more homes are built than would otherwise be the case.
	In addition, as outlined in the written ministerial statement of 6 September 2012, Official Report, column 30WS, the Government will invite bids to provide up to an additional 15,000 affordable homes through the use of loan guarantees, asset management flexibilities and capital funding. We also intend to extend our successful refurbishment programme to bring an additional 5,000 existing empty homes back into use.

EU Grants and Loans

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether unspent funds allocated to the UK under the European Regional Development Programme are returned to the EU; and whether that returned money leads to any saving to his Department directly or to the Exchequer.

Brandon Lewis: holding answer 5 November 2012
	The European Union (EU) budget commits European Regional Development Fund allocations to each member state by year. If a member state does not make these payments to eligible projects within the eligible time period, these funds remain within the EU budget. This reduces the costs of contributions for all member states including the UK Exchequer. It does not result in a direct one-for-one repatriation of these funds to the member state responsible.
	As I informed the right hon. Member in my answer to him of 13 September 2012, Official Report, columns 306-08W, the 2007-13 programme is on course and on track. An average of over 100% of the programme has been contractually committed or is awaiting contracting, with matched funding in place. We are exactly where we would expect to be at this point in the seven-year programme.

Housing: Hampshire

John Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many housing starts there were in (a) Hampshire and (b) Southampton in the last quarter, and in the same quarter in each of the last five years.

Mark Prisk: The following table shows the total number of house building starts in Southampton and Hampshire for each quarter since the start of the financial year 2007-08.
	
		
			 Total house building starts Southampton and Hampshire 2007-08 to 2012-13 
			   Southampton Hampshire 
			 2007-08 Q1 217 1336 
			  Q2 198 — 
			  Q3 117 967 
			  Q4 207 1373 
			 2008-09 Q1 323 1527 
			  Q2 302 1069 
			  Q3 218 861 
			  Q4 55 — 
			 2009-10 Q1 30 — 
			  Q2 231 1078 
			  Q3 220 1149 
			  Q4 152 1041 
			 2010-11 Q1 69 1185 
			  Q2 169 865 
			  Q3 157 536 
			  Q4 116 — 
			 2011-12 Q1 143 787 
			  Q2 77 785 
			  Q3 106 532 
			  Q4 46 710 
			 2012-13 Q1 24 — 
		
	
	Figures for Hampshire are available for quarters only when all Hampshire districts reported data. Data has not been seasonally adjusted. Quarterly data at local authority level is subject to high levels of variation should be treated with caution.
	In addition to new build, we have a wide range of measures to increase supply. To date, the Government have sold enough formerly used surplus public sector land to deliver 33,000 new homes, we're investing £19.5 billion public and private funding in a programme to deliver 170,000 affordable homes, and we have introduced the NewBuy and FirstBuy schemes to help aspiring homeowners take their first step onto the housing ladder with a fraction of the deposit they would normally require.

Local Government: Procurement

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance he has given to local authorities to help locally-based small and medium-sized enterprises in respect of (a) larger contracts arising from shared services and (b) other aspects of their procurement services.

Brandon Lewis: Procurement in local government is a matter for local discretion but the Government is committed to encouraging a more open and level playing field for small and medium enterprises and has taken steps to improve opportunities for them. Local authorities act independently of central Government and Ministers have not issued guidance to them on these matters.
	Last year the Prime Minister launched a new, free-to-use, online Contracts Finder portal and a simplified pre-qualification questionnaire to make it easier and cheaper for small and medium enterprises to bid for public sector opportunities. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), has also made clear on several occasions that he expects pre-qualification questionnaires to be removed for contracts under the European threshold of £173,000.

Members: Correspondence

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex of 27 June 2012, reference GCGC018782/12.

Nicholas Boles: holding answer 2 November 2012
	This letter was answered on 2 November 2012.

Mobile Phones

Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which companies supply (a) mobile telephones and (b) mobile data services to his Department.

Brandon Lewis: The Department for Communities and Local Government uses a combination of Orange and Vodafone contracts through cross Government procurement frameworks let by the Government Procurement Service.
	Having multiple suppliers is a legacy of contracts agreed under the last Administration. In due course, we will be moving to a single supplier to deliver greater value for money.

Non-domestic Rates

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effect of the reduction of the Government's contribution to mandatory relief on business rates to 50 per cent on local authorities' revenue; and if he will consider reversing the decision to reduce that contribution.

Brandon Lewis: The Government set out the details of the local business rate retention scheme in the technical consultation published in July 2012. The Government's response to the consultation will be published in due course.
	For the avoidance of doubt, there is no change to the mandatory rate reliefs which eligible ratepayers (e.g. charities) actually receive.
	Under the local retention of business rates, it is proposed that from April 2013, each local authority's business rates baseline will reflect the funding of mandatory reliefs that they currently grant (in other words, the baseline will be offset by 100% of the value of mandatory reliefs provided to ratepayers).
	Thereafter, if a local authority's mandatory reliefs increase, the additional cost will be borne 50:50 between the authority and central Government (conversely, if the cost of mandatory reliefs were to decline, the saving will also be shared 50:50). This 50:50 sharing simply reflects the broader sharing of business rate revenues between central and local government under the new localised system.

Private Rented Housing: North West

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average monthly rent was in the private rented sector in each local authority in the North West in each year since 2009.

Mark Prisk: Statistics on rents in the private rented sector by local authority are published by the Valuation Office Agency. The published information available is from 2011:
	http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/statisticalReleases/120823_PRRM_ReleaseNotes.html#tables

Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012

Chris White: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what support he plans to give to local authorities in implementing the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

Brandon Lewis: Local spending decisions are for local authorities themselves, but central Government has a significant role in creating the conditions for effective local procurement.
	Our approach has been to influence and encourage the sector to streamline their procurement functions and open up tenders to a wider range of potential suppliers, including small and medium enterprises as well as voluntary and community groups.
	To help local authorities acquire the skills to better commission services we are working with the Cabinet Office and the Local Government Association to provide accessible learning opportunities on commissioning skills for all council officers.

Social Rented Housing: Greater London

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  what recent estimate he has made of the effect of immigration on new social housing lets in London;
	(2)  what estimate he has made of the effect of immigration on social housing waiting lists in London over the last 10 years.

Mark Prisk: Under this Government, we have published a number of research reports on immigration that were commissioned by the last Administration but never published. They were placed in the Library further to the written ministerial statements of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 19WS and 10 October 2011, Official Report, column 1WS.
	A comprehensive answer on the limited eligibility of social housing for foreign nationals was outlined in the answer of 17 May 2012, Official Report, column 247W.
	We do not collect information centrally on the nationality of households on housing waiting lists. Information on the new lettings of social housing by nationality of the tenant is published at:
	www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/2055516.xls
	The figures show that, across England, almost one in 10 of those new to social tenancy are not UK nationals. The ‘CORE’ data source is not comprehensive enough to provide a figure for London, but my Department is taking steps to address the under-reporting by some local authorities in London.
	Notwithstanding, as outlined in the answer of 17 May 2012, based on data from the English Housing Survey data for 2009-10, it is roughly estimated that around a fifth of households in social housing in London are not British or Irish.
	Such estimates provide a strong argument for the coalition Government's reforms to give councils greater powers and flexibilities over the allocation of social housing, so greater weight can be given both to those with genuinely local connections and to current and former members of the armed forces.
	Through the Localism Act, we have given back to councils the freedom to manage their own waiting lists. They are now able to decide who should qualify for social housing in their area, and to develop solutions which make best use of finite social housing stock.
	Current and former members of our armed forces are one group who have previously lost out in the social housing system, because moving from base to base and living abroad leaves them without strong local connections. We have amended the law such that former personnel with urgent housing needs are always given high priority on waiting lists, and that personnel who move from base to base do not lose their qualification rights. New statutory guidance to councils sets out how their allocation schemes can give priority to current or ex-service personnel, including through the use of local preference criteria and local lettings policies.
	Some councils are not using these new local flexibilities, and they should be held to account and challenged to justify their actions.

Tunnels: Greenwich

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  what steps his Department has taken to monitor the implementation of the funding agreement for the grant awarded by his Department to the Royal Borough of Greenwich for the refurbishment of Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels;
	(2)  whether the Royal Borough of Greenwich met the conditions of its contractual agreement with his Department for the refurbishment of the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels.

Mark Prisk: The original Community Infrastructure Fund 2 agreement for the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels was signed in November 2008 between the Department and the London borough of Greenwich.
	The total funding allocation was £11.5 million for the refurbishment of the Greenwich and Woolwich rotunda, tunnels, stairwells and replacements of both lifts, including funding the associated mechanical and electrical works.
	In December 2008 delivery and monitoring of the grants were then passed to Homes and Communities Agency as DCLG's main delivery body. The agency monitored these grants and were content with progress on the eligible works it funded. The borough confirmed that all eligible works funded by the Homes and Communities Agency were completed as per the conditions of contract and that any remaining works would be funded from their own resources.
	Responsibility for these grants then passed to the Greater London Authority on 1 April 2012 as part of the wider transfer of the agency's London responsibilities.

Urban Areas

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on what date he expects to release the funds for successful town team partnership bids to the relevant local authorities.

Mark Prisk: As announced on 23 October 2012, over 300 town teams applied to become Town Team Partners. The Government's multi-million pound support programme will help them put key elements of their plans into action. The funds have already been released.

Bears

Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress the Government has made on seeking to eliminate bear bile farming through international negotiation or other means; and if he will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: We are committed to working to help the conservation of wild animals, including bears, worldwide. While we cannot intervene directly in the protection of wildlife abroad, we recognise that the farming of bears for their bile is an abhorrent practice. This Government raised concerns about animal welfare standards in China, including bears in bear bile farms, in a letter to the Chinese authorities earlier this year.
	The UK helps to reduce the demand for bear bile by banning all commercial trade in and importation of bear bile or gall bladders irrespective of their source. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) some trade in bear products is allowed, particularly in products from captive-bred animals. However, the UK's ban is stricter than the Convention and is in place because we consider that such trade is likely to be detrimental to the species.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of progress in developing vaccines to tackle the spread of bovine TB.

David Heath: Cattle and badger vaccination are risk reduction measures, most likely to be successful in controlling bovine TB when used alongside other disease control measures.
	We are working on steps agreed with the European Commission to provide the necessary assurances on the safety and efficacy of a cattle vaccine and associated test to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA). This is however a lengthy and complicated process, which means that we cannot yet say when a viable and legal cattle vaccine will be available in the field. Oral badger vaccine is still at the research stage and is not yet at the point where an application for a marketing authorisation can be made. An injectable badger vaccine is already available for use but there remain limitations to its practical deployment.

Floods

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure inter-agency co-operation to (a) reduce the occurrence of flooding, (b) minimise the impact of flooding when it occurs and (c) improve recovery after flooding.

Richard Benyon: The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 requires agencies to maintain plans for preventing emergencies; reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of emergencies in both the response and recovery phases and to co-operate with each other.
	Flood and coastal erosion risk management is undertaken by the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards, often in collaboration with other local partners such as water companies and flood groups. The Environment Agency, working with Regional Flood and Coastal Committees, oversees the allocation of funding, to agree the flood defence programme each year. We aim to spend more than £2.17 billion over the four years to 2015 on flood and coastal erosion risk management, improving protection for 145,000 homes.
	The Government has drawn up guidance for multi-agency flood planning, based on good practice and lessons learned from real flooding events. Each Local Resilience Forum has the responsibility of preparing a multi-agency flood plan to ensure the co-ordination of the local response to flooding in their area, including recovery planning where it relates to flooding.
	In addition to this, the Flood Forecasting Centre and Met Office consistently provide a high quality forecasting service to local authorities, Government Agencies and Departments, as for example during the flooding incidents over the spring and summer this year. They accurately predict risks, which enable appropriate and timely action to be taken on the ground. The Environment Agency and local authorities respond to these warnings by clearing channels and culverts of blockages and debris in advance, checking flood defences and flood storage basins, and putting temporary defences in place.

Forests

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the Independent Panel on Forestry report's recommendation that 15 per cent of the total area of the UK be dedicated to forestry and woodland by 2060.

David Heath: The Government set out in the “Natural Environment” White Paper its ambition for a major increase in the area of woodland in England and for forests and woodlands to play a full part in achieving a resilient and coherent ecological network across England. We are currently considering the report from the Independent Panel on Forestry, including its recommendations relating to increasing woodland cover. We will be responding to the panel's report in January 2013.

Forests

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  what recent assessment he has made of the effects on health and wellbeing of the Public Forest Estate and general woodlands;
	(2)  what recent assessment he has made of the benefits to local communities of the Public Forest Estate and general woodlands.

David Heath: Forest Research, an Agency of the Forestry Commission, carries out a range of research into people, trees and woodland. Its research aims to develop an understanding about the relationships between forestry and society by concentrating on the social dimension of sustainable forest management, and using qualitative and quantitative research methods in social science. It has published numerous reports covering this subject area which are available on its website.

Sky Lanterns: South West

Jack Lopresti: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress he has made on mitigating the effect of sky lanterns on the farming community in the South West.

David Heath: The Government are aware of concerns about the impacts of sky lanterns on animals, crops and property and has taken steps to raise public awareness about the potential dangers sky lanterns pose, and to encourage people to think carefully before using them. During the approach to bonfire night DEFRA has appealed through local media for people to consider alternatives to sky lanterns.
	I have commissioned an independent study to examine the scale of the risks associated with the use of sky lanterns, and their impact on livestock, plants and the environment. The results of this study will help to determine whether any future Government action may be required.

Trees: Diseases

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date Chalara fraxinea was identified in the UK; and on what date Ministers in his Department were informed.

David Heath: Chalara fraxinea was first confirmed in the UK on 7 March 2012, following investigation on 20 February 2012 of suspect symptoms at a nursery in Buckinghamshire by the Food and Environment Research Agency's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate. Ministers were first informed of the finding on 3 April 2012.

Turtles: Cayman Islands

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requests he has received for technical support from the Cayman Islands government in respect of the Cayman Turtle Farm.

Richard Benyon: This Government have not received any requests for technical support from the Cayman Islands Government in respect of the Cayman Turtle Farm.

Children in Care: Cumbria

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children have been taken into care in Cumbria in the last (a) six and (b) 12 months; and if he will make an assessment of the comparative figures for other local authorities.

Edward Timpson: The number of children who were taken into care in Cumbria in the last (a) six months and (b) 12 months, up to 31 March 2012, was 75 and 120, respectively. The following table shows the same information for all local authorities in England.
	Children taken into care are children who started to be looked after under a care order, police protection, an emergency protection order or under a child assessment order. If a child was taken into care on more than one occasion over the year and one of the occasions was in the last six months of the year then that child has been counted in both the 12 months and the six months totals. For this reason, counts for the separate six month periods add up to more than the 12 month figure.
	The information for children taken into care in the last 12 months is also published in table LAC1 of the Department's Statistical First Release, ‘Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England (including adoption and care leavers)—year ending 31 March 2011’. This publication can be found at:
	http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/allstatistics/a00213762/children-looked-after-las-england
	
		
			 Children who were taken into care during the year ending 31 March, by local authority (1,2,3,4,5) , year ending 31 March 2012 — Coverage: England 
			 Number 
			  2012 
			  Children taken into care during the last 12 months to 31 March 2012 (2) Children taken into care during the last 6 months to 31 March 2012 (3) 
			 England 10,100 6,490 
			    
			 North East 500 330 
			 Darlington 15 10 
			 Durham 85 60 
			 Gateshead 40 40 
			 Hartlepool 15 5 
			 Middlesbrough 45 35 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 60 25 
			 North Tyneside 30 20 
			 Northumberland 25 15 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 40 20 
			 South Tyneside 60 35 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 40 35 
			 Sunderland 40 30 
			    
			 North West 1,620 1,130 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 65 35 
			 Blackpool 50 25 
			 Bolton 80 55 
			 Bury 65 55 
			 Cheshire East 50 25 
			 Cheshire West and Chester 55 35 
			 Cumbria 120 75 
			 Halton 30 20 
			 Knowsley 10 x 
			 Lancashire 210 140 
			 Liverpool 90 60 
			 Manchester 160 130 
			 Oldham 70 40 
			 Rochdale 75 50 
			 Salford 60 60 
			 Sefton 60 45 
			 St Helens 35 30 
			 Stockport 60 45 
			 Tameside 60 35 
			 Trafford 40 30 
			 Warrington 45 35 
			 Wigan 60 45 
			 Wirral 80 60 
		
	
	
		
			    
			 Yorkshire and  t he Humber 1,200 800 
			 Barnsley 55 25 
			 Bradford 120 100 
			 Calderdale 45 30 
			 Doncaster 100 75 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 45 45 
			 Kingston upon Hull, City of 65 40 
			 Kirklees 95 70 
			 Leeds 230 155 
			 North East Lincolnshire 25 15 
			 North Lincolnshire 25 10 
			 North Yorkshire 60 45 
			 Rotherham 70 35 
			 Sheffield 130 85 
			 Wakefield 85 50 
			 York 50 20 
			    
			 East Midlands 660 440 
			 Derby 75 50 
			 Derbyshire 105 85 
			 Leicester 70 50 
			 Leicestershire 60 35 
			 Lincolnshire 80 55 
			 Northamptonshire 90 55 
			 Nottingham 85 55 
			 Nottinghamshire 95 55 
			 Rutland x x 
			    
			 West Midlands 1,190 740 
			 Birmingham 280 145 
			 Coventry 85 55 
			 Dudley 60 45 
			 Herefordshire 35 15 
			 Sandwell 95 55 
			 Shropshire 20 20 
			 Solihull 40 35 
			 Staffordshire 110 70 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 85 55 
			 Telford and Wrekin 60 35 
			 Walsall 65 40 
			 Warwickshire 95 70 
			 Wolverhampton 105 70 
			 Worcestershire 55 30 
			    
			 East of England 940 580 
			 Bedford Borough 40 35 
			 Central Bedfordshire 40 20 
			 Cambridgeshire 75 45 
			 Essex 200 100 
			 Hertfordshire 135 90 
			 Luton 50 30 
			 Norfolk 130 90 
			 Peterborough 75 50 
			 Southend-on-Sea 35 30 
			 Suffolk 110 60 
		
	
	
		
			 Thurrock 55 30 
			    
			 London 1,890 1,130 
			 Inner London 950 550 
			 Camden 65 40 
			 City of London 0 0 
			 Hackney 60 45 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 30 25 
			 Haringey 150 55 
			 Islington 70 45 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 15 10 
			 Lambeth 85 55 
			 Lewisham 75 45 
			 Newham 90 70 
			 Southwark 115 50 
			 Tower Hamlets 100 60 
			 Wandsworth 50 25 
			 Westminster 45 25 
			    
			 Outer London 930 570 
			 Barking and Dagenham 105 55 
			 Barnet 65 45 
			 Bexley 50 35 
			 Brent 85 65 
			 Bromley 40 30 
			 Croydon 45 15 
			 Ealing 70 45 
			 Enfield 70 35 
			 Greenwich 110 60 
			 Harrow 25 15 
			 Havering 25 15 
			 Hillingdon 40 30 
			 Hounslow 65 40 
			 Kingston upon Thames 15 10 
			 Merton 25 10 
			 Redbridge 25 20 
			 Richmond upon Thames 10 10 
			 Sutton 30 20 
			 Waltham Forest 40 15 
			    
			 South East 1,340 860 
			 Bracknell Forest 15 10 
			 Brighton and Hove 95 70 
			 Buckinghamshire 50 25 
			 East Sussex 125 60 
			 Hampshire 135 80 
			 Isle of Wight 20 10 
			 Kent 275 185 
			 Medway Towns 35 35 
			 Milton Keynes 45 30 
			 Oxfordshire 100 75 
			 Portsmouth 30 30 
			 Reading 45 30 
			 Slough 25 20 
			 Southampton 65 45 
			 Surrey 130 75 
		
	
	
		
			 West Berkshire 15 10 
			 West Sussex 120 65 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 15 10 
			 Wokingham x x 
			    
			 South West 750 480 
			 Bath and North East Somerset 20 15 
			 Bournemouth 65 30 
			 Bristol, City of 110 55 
			 Cornwall 100 80 
			 Devon 75 60 
			 Dorset 25 20 
			 Gloucestershire 45 25 
			 Isles of Scilly 0 0 
			 North Somerset 15 15 
			 Plymouth 60 30 
			 Poole 25 15 
			 Somerset 95 50 
			 South Gloucestershire 30 20 
			 Swindon 20 20 
			 Torbay 30 20 
			 Wiltshire 40 25 
			 (1) England and regional totals have been rounded to the nearest 10. Local authority numbers have been rounded to the nearest five. (2) Only the first occasion on which a child was taken into care during the year has been counted. (3) Only the first occasion on which a child was taken into care during the six months has been counted. (4) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements. (5) Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials. Notes: 1. Children who were taken into care are children who started to be looked after under a care order, police protection, an emergency protection order or under a child assessment order. 2. ‘x’ = figures not shown in order to protect confidentiality. Source: SSDA 903

Free School Meals: Further Education

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the cost of extending free school meal eligibility to 16 to 18 year-olds studying at further education or sixth form colleges.

David Laws: We are currently assessing options for free school meal eligibility for 16 to 18-year-olds in further education and sixth form colleges. Estimates given to the House by the then Minister of State for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), on 13 June 2012, Official Report, columns 92-95WH, placed costs in a range of £38 million to £70 million:
	http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120613/halltext/120613h0001.htm#12061355000394l

Physical Education: Teachers

Nicholas Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to ensure that primary school teachers are trained in teaching fundamental movement skills.

David Laws: The Secretary of State for Education does not set the content of initial teacher training courses or require that training providers deliver teaching in fundamental movement skills. It is for training providers to decide what trainees should be taught to enable them to achieve the Teachers' Standards. The Department does not mandate content of initial teacher training courses. Trainees must know and understand the relevant statutory and non-statutory curricula and frameworks and other relevant information applicable to the age and ability range for which they are trained.

Physical Education: Teachers

Nicholas Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the initial teacher training syllabus for primary school teachers is devoted to physical education.

David Laws: The Secretary of State for Education does not set the content of initial teacher training courses or require that training providers devote a proportion of the syllabus to physical education. It is for training providers to decide what trainees should be taught to enable them to achieve the Teachers' Standards. The Department does not mandate content of initial teacher training courses. Trainees must know and understand the relevant statutory and non-statutory curricula and frameworks and other relevant information applicable to the age and ability range for which they are trained.

Assaults on Police

Gareth Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions for assaults on police officers there have been in each of the last 10 years; and what the sentence imposed was in each case.

Jeremy Wright: The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for the offence of assault on a constable, by sentence breakdown, in England and Wales from 2002 to 2011 can be viewed in the table. Where more serious assaults on a police officer are committed, for example actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, a more serious offence will be charged and it is not possible to identify these cases from the recording of the offence.
	
		
			 Defendants found guilty at all courts and sentenced for ‘assault on a constable’ (1) , England and Wales, 2002-11 (2, 3, 4) 
			 Outcome 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
			 Guilty 6,506 7,883 9,342 9,946 9,654 9,921 9,640 9,189 8,695 9,224 
			 Sentenced 6,510 7,881 9,333 9,943 9,653 9,913 9,622 9,215 8,729 9,241 
			 Absolute discharge 14 32 15 22 34 32 27 20 22 31 
			 Conditional discharge 779 1,020 1,115 1,135 1,019 1,124 919 752 814 799 
			 Fine 1,061 1,270 1,335 1,206 987 933 980 1,283 1,253 1,782 
			 Community sentence 3,193 3,874 4,809 5,034 4,459 4,614 4,794 4,710 4,209 4,318 
			 Suspended suspended 37 39 46 283 1,027 1,119 984 812 768 737 
			 Immediate custody 1,277 1,449 1,782 1,960 1,709 1,715 1,589 1,461 1,368 1,255 
			 Otherwise dealt with 149 197 231 303 418 376 329 177 295 319 
			 Average custodial sentence length (months)(5) 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 
			 Average fine (£) 148 152 162 170 184 197 192 175 165 144 
			 (1) Includes offence under: Police Act 1996, S.89 (1) (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (4) The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown court, may be sentenced in the following year. (5) Excludes life and indeterminate sentences. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice.

Organised Crime: Females

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number of girls involved in gangs that have been sexually exploited.

Jeremy Browne: I have been asked to reply 
	on behalf of the Home Department.
	There are currently very little data on the number of girls involved in gang violence that have been sexually exploited. Research by the organisation Race on the Agenda (2010; 2011) exposed the harm that women and girls can experience as a result of their relationships with gang-associated male family members and peers.
	To help address this problem, the Government's ‘Ending Gang and Youth Violence’ report, published in November 2012, announced £1.2 million of additional funding over three years (until March 2015) to improve services for young people under 18 suffering sexual violence, with a focus on sexual exploitation by gangs.

Prisoners: Death

Chuka Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how many people died whilst in custody of the Prison Service in each calendar year (a) from 2001 to 2011 and (b) in 2012 to date;
	(2)  how many people, by ethnic group, died whilst in custody of the Prison Service in each calendar year (a) from 2001 to 2011 and (b) in 2012 to date.

Jeremy Wright: Table 1 shows the total number of deaths in prison custody by calendar year from 2001 to 2011 and figures to 30 June 2012 and a breakdown of those figures by ethnicity.
	The latest information on deaths in prison custody can be found in the Safety in Custody Statistics bulletin which is updated each quarter. It can be found at the following weblink;
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/prisons-and-probation/safety-in-custody
	
		
			 Table 1: Deaths in prison custody by year and ethnicity 
			  White Asian Black Mixed Chinese/ other Total 
			 2001 131 3 7 n/a 1 142 
			 2002 148 6 8 n/a 2 164 
			 2003 167 6 8 n/a 2 183 
			 2004 186 10 9 3 0 208 
			 2005 145 6 20 3 0 174 
			 2006 134 6 10 2 1 153 
			 2007 151 9 21 7 2 185 
			 2008 143 13 2 3 4 165 
			 2009 153 6 3 6 1 169 
			 2010 172 11 11 2 1 197 
			 2011 167 8 12 4 1 192 
			 2012 (to 30 June) 88 6 8 1 — 103 
			 n/a = Not available—mixed category used from 2004

Prisons: Private Sector

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on what occasions private prisons have refused to take new prisoners; and for what reasons such refusals were made.

Jeremy Wright: The information requested is not collected centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
	All prisons have criteria for accepting new prisoners. Provided the prisoner meets these criteria, he or she will normally be accepted. However, a prison may decline to accept a prisoner for a number of reasons, including the prisoner's not meeting the acceptance criteria, late arrival at the establishment or the prison having reached its full capacity.

Public Expenditure

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer of 8 March 2012, Official Report, columns 853-4W, on public expenditure, how much has been saved by his Department in the areas of (a) administration and (b) front line efficiency since May 2010; and how much he expects to save in each area in (i) 2012-13, (ii) 2013-14 and (iii) 2014-15.

Helen Grant: Since the spending review settlement, the Department made savings in its back office (administration) functions of £210 million and £220 million of frontline efficiencies in 2011-12. The Department expects to make additional savings in future years as follows:
	
		
			 £ million 
			  Administration Frontline 
			 2012-13 250 90 
			 2013-14 20 100 
			 2014-15 50 70 
			 Note: Annual totals rounded to the nearest £10 million. 
		
	
	Therefore, over the course of this spending review period the Department plans to make savings in its back office (administration) functions of £530 million and £480 million of frontline efficiencies. The nature of forecasting savings which are to be delivered in future years mean that figures will inevitably be subject to some change as we move through the spending review period.

Reoffenders

Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to reduce the number of people going repeatedly through the criminal justice system on short sentences.

Jeremy Wright: We recognise that those sentenced to short custodial sentences have high reoffending rates and we are looking to see how best to deliver rehabilitation for this group, in addition to those who have been sentenced to 12 months or more and those given community orders. By the end of 2015 we intend to apply the payment by results approach right across our rehabilitation work with offenders in the community.

Research

Chris Kelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what external policy research his Department has commissioned in each of the last six years; from which organisation each such piece of research was commissioned; and what the cost of each such piece of research was.

Jeremy Wright: A list of external policy research projects commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (and formerly by the Department for Constitutional Affairs—DCA—and the Office for Criminal Justice Reform—OCJR) in each of the last six years, the organisation from which the research was commissioned and the cost of the research can be viewed in the following table.
	Some research that was contracted before 2008-09 (eg research commissioned by OCJR) can only be supplied by the Home Office and is not included in this response. Additionally, because of departmental restructuring and the restructuring of its research and analytical services during the past six years, some research projects may be omitted from the table, or may be duplicated in returns for other Government Departments.
	
		
			 External policy research contracts commissioned by the Ministry of Justice ( MOJ ), the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in each of the last six years 
			 Year commissioned (1) Title of research project Supplier Total contract cost (£) (2) Office (3) 
			 2006-07 Access to justice for people with mental health problems KMRC 19,900.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Access to justice for vulnerable groups—exploring issues of age, identity, health and social conditions University of Birmingham 54,840.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Delivering excellent public services Dr Chris Fox 28,593.73 DCA 
		
	
	
		
			 2006-07 Drivers of public satisfaction in the civil (family and non-family), criminal and tribunal justice systems Cardiff University 61,084.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Drivers of satisfaction with the justice system INLOGOV 34,340.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Evaluation of the measure to support victims of domestic violence in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act (2004) and the proposed Croydon Integrated Domestic Violence Court University of Bristol 105,993.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Impact of changing court fees on users Opinion Leader 63,400.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Impact of changing court fees on users (2) Opinion Leader 3,579.25 DCA 
			 2006-07 Knowledge review of alternative dispute resolution University of Salford 25,957.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 North Liverpool Community Justice Centre Evaluation ECOTEC 247,000.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Profiling public law s.31 cases University of Bristol 199,363.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Public attitudes towards summary justice in England and Wales Promise 39,250.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Public attitudes towards summary justice in England and Wales (2) DVD production Exposure 4 7,300.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Public knowledge of and attitudes to the jury—An international literature review ICPR 13,600.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Public legal education and support (PLEAS) aB Consultancy 32,000.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Public protection, proportionality and the search for balance University of Oxford 24,514.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Users' experiences of the coroner's court Ipsos Mori 22,665.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Users' experiences of the coroner's court (2) Ipsos Mori 200.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Users' experiences of the coroner's court (3) Ipsos Mori 2,325.00 DCA 
			 2006-07 Together Women action research University of Leicester 100,000.00 NOMS 
			 2006-07 Evaluating the use of mediation in employment tribunals Peter Unwin 136,807.65 DCA 
			 2006-07 Victims’ advocates pilots evaluation BMRB 170,913.00 DCA 
			 2007-08 Dedicated drug court pilot—data audit Matrix 13,515.73 DCA 
			 2007-08 Evaluation of alternative dispute resolution in the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Tribunal ECOTEC 110,250.00 DCA 
			 2007-08 Race and jury decision-making—all white juries UCL 133,965.00 DCA 
			 2007-08 The court experiences of adults with mental health problems, learning disabilities and limited mental capacity BMRB 242,014.00 DCA 
			 2007-08 Juvenile cohort study (JCS) Morgan Harris Burrows 1,320,422.00 (4)— 
			 2007-08 The extent and value of pro bono work provided by legal executives and trainee legal executives ECOTEC 39,813.00 DCA 
			 2008-09 A baseline survey to assess the impact of legal services reforms National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 91,770.00 DCA 
			 2008-09 A study of Sharia councils in relation to family law matters in England and Wales University of Birmingham 21,630.00 DCA 
			 2008-09 Assessment of the early implementation of the minimum dataset specification AB Consultancy 24,000.00 OCJR 
			 2008-09 Assessment of the implementation of postal charging and requisitions University of York 43,580.00 OCJR 
			 2008-09 Court fees remission system PricewaterhouseCoopers 90,000.00 DCA 
		
	
	
		
			 2008-09 Evaluation of the new public law outline in family courts National Centre for Social Research 104,464.00 DCA 
			 2008-09 Evaluation of the project testing out the conditional cautioning scheme referral to TWP women's centres London South Bank University 49,340.00 OCJR 
			 2008-09 Evaluation on reoffending for community justice initiatives at north Liverpool and Salford Cambridge University 26,466.00 DCA 
			 2008-09 Examining implementation of the pilot of the stable and acute 2007 dynamic risk assessment tool NatCen 125,859.00 NOMS 
			 2008-09 Improving the structure and contents of psychiatric reports: research to develop good practice guidance BMRB 86,500.00 DCA 
			 2008-09 Mapping support services for victims and witnesses MVA Consultancy 186,500.00 OCJR 
			 2008-09 Offender management community cohort study NatCen 1,730,113.00 MOJ 
			 2008-09 Polygraph disclosure project De Montfort University 52,159.90 NOMS 
			 2008-09 Process evaluation of intensive alternative to custody—Derbyshire Sheffield Hallam University 111,525.00 NOMS 
			 2008-09 Public preferences feasibility study LSE Enterprise Ltd 108,980.00 NOMS 
			 2008-09 Statistics on women and the criminal justice system Kings College London 35,800.00 OCJR 
			 2008-09 SWAG evaluation Sheffield Hallam University 60,300.00 NOMS 
			 2008-09 Together Women (TW) feasibility study University of Leicester 90,862.36 NOMS 
			 2009-10 A baseline survey to assess the impact of legal services reform National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 22,352.50 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Community payback  93,000.00 OCJR 
			 2009-10 Constitutional tracker BMRB 18,750.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Integrated alternatives to custody: A process evaluation and outcome evaluation feasibility study in IAC pilot areas Sheffield Hallam University 234,068.00 NOMS 
			 2009-10 Integrated offender management: Feasibility study Sheffield Hallam University 228,516.20 NOMS 
			 2009-10 Mandatory polygraph pilots University of Kent 315,777.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 National Crown court sentencing survey Methodology and Consulting Services 3,765.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Research on the strengths and skills of the judiciary in the magistrates courts of England and Wales (SRG/09/021) Ipsos-Mori 268,000.00 DCA 
			 2009-10 Right here, Right now TNS - BMRB 19,900.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Sharia research University of Reading 21,630.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Together Woman data collection QinetiQ 14,600.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Together Woman outcome evaluation University of Leicester 88,108.00 MOJ 
			 2009-10 Virtual court evaluation WM Enterprise 189,669.38 OCJR 
			 2010-11 Imprisonment for public protection (IPP) IPSOS MORI 59,475.00 MOJ 
			 2010-11 Homicide service evaluation National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 59,093.00 MOJ 
			 2010-11 Peterborough independent assessor QinetiQ 106,730.00 MOJ 
			 2010-11 Police and CPS case file database and analysis National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 194,660.00 MOJ 
			 2010-11 Sentence planning approaches (SPA) Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) 72,915.00 NOMS 
			 2010-11 Reflective supervision pilot (RSM) Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) 25,625.00 NOMS 
			 2010-11 SPA/RSM literature review Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) 18,250.00 NOMS 
			 2010-11 Offender management feedback questionnaire development Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) 95,255.00 NOMS 
			 2010-11 Sex offender project London Economics Ltd 46,800.00 MOJ 
			 2010-11 Prison and crime Professor Roger Tarling 3,300.00 MOJ 
		
	
	
		
			 2010-11 The social impact bond at HMP Peterborough RAND Europe 97,960.00 MOJ 
			 2010-11 Skills for effective engagement and Development (SEED)—investigating quality University of Sheffield 176,536.00 NOMS 
			 2010-11 Skills for effective engagement and development (SEED)—evaluation University of Sheffield 172,541.00 NOMS 
			 2010-11 SPCR missing data project—part 1 and 2 University of Surrey 59,004.25 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Analysis of paedophile interviews National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 20,000.00 NOMS 
			 2011-12 Evaluating the low value road traffic accident process Professor Paul Fenn 12,500.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Doncaster PbR process evaluation project GVA Grimley Limited 99,645.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Evidence and practice review of support for victims and outcome measurement National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 89,668.80 MOJ 
			 2011-12 FOI study Market and Opinion Research International Ltd 64,310.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Informal mentoring project evaluation M and E Consulting 75,850.00 NOMS 
			 2011-12 Investigation of prison climate Nottingham Trent University 15,000.00 NOMS 
			 2011-12 Justice reinvestment project Sheffield Hallam University 143,168.80 MOJ 
			 2011-12 PIPES observational evaluation National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) 39,663.00 NOMS 
			 2011-12 Security health check of the Traka key management solution at HMP Stocken QinetiQ 2,500.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 SPCR attrition project Ian Brunton-Smith 39,812.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Systematic review for general and violent reoffending Matrix Insight Ltd 69,137.50 NOMS 
			 2011-12 The effectiveness of different community order requirements for offenders National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) 41,240.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Circles of support and accountability University of the West of England 46,475.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Exploring a new language for adult sentences to improve public understanding DUCKFoOT Research and Development Ltd 26,110.00 MOJ 
			 2011-12 Youth justice reinvestment pathfinder evaluation Sheffield Hallam University 171,591.50 MOJ 
			 (1) ‘Year commissioned’ denotes the year in which the contract was originally commissioned. This is not the same as the year in which payments for research were made. (2) ‘Total contract costs’ includes the most accurate information that could be obtained at the time of response on the value of the contract as initially agreed, or the amount finally paid where this was different. (3) MOJ = Ministry of Justice; DCA = the Department for Constitutional Affairs; OCJR = Office for Criminal Justice Reform; NOMS = National Offender Management Service. (4) Costs were shared between MOJ, NOMS and the Youth Justice Board. Note: This response includes policy research commissioned through analysis and research teams within MoJ. Other externally commissioned research (e.g. surveys) is not included. It does not include research by the Home Office's Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) which is funded by the Ministry of Justice. Some research before 2008-09 (such as research contracted by OCJR) can only be supplied by the Home Office and is not included in this response. Source: Analytical and Business Support Team, Analytical Services Directorate—Ministry of Justice

Staff

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on what dates (a) Ministers in his Department and (b) officials at payband SCS3 in his Department have met representatives of (i) G4S, (ii) Sodexo, (iii) Mitie and (iv) Serco since May 2010; what the name was of each attendee at each such meeting; and what the nature was of each such meeting.

Jeremy Wright: The information requested is being collated from ministerial and official diaries over the period from May 2010 to date. I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.

Young Offender Institutions

Toby Perkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the capacity of each young offender institute is; and how many offenders each held on 1 November 2012.

Jeremy Wright: Information on the capacity and population of each young offender institution is set out in the following table. The data is based on the latest available published figures from 28 September 2012.
	
		
			 Capacity and population data for young offender institutions: September 2012 
			 Predominant young offender institution Population Operational capacity 
			 Ashfield 211 360 
			 Aylesbury 414 444 
			 Brinsford 529 577 
			 Cookham Wood 121 143 
			 Deerbolt 383 513 
			 Feltham 642 762 
			 Glen Parva 643 808 
			 Hindley 243 506 
			 Isis 582 622 
			 Lancaster Farms 506 530 
			 Northallerton 237 252 
			 Portland 525 530 
			 Reading 214 320 
			 Rochester 642 658 
			 Stoke Heath 641 750 
			 Thorn Cross 299 321 
			 Warren Hill 130 192 
			 Werrington 135 160 
			 Wetherby 280 381 
		
	
	Only those establishments with a predominant function of young offender institution are listed in the above table. Dual-use establishments with other predominant functions are not included.
	These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible error with data entry and processing.

Apprentices

Michael Crockart: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities how many apprentices working in the Government Equalities Office are (a) paid and (b) completing a qualification as part of the apprenticeship.

Maria Miller: On 1 April 2011 the Government Equalities Office ceased to be a separate Government Department. The information requested will be included in the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s reply to your similar questions PQ123089 and PQ123090, which relates to the Home Department.

Equality: Travellers

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what discussions she has had with the Secretaries of State for Health and Education on equality of health and education outcomes for members of Gypsy and Traveller communities.

Helen Grant: holding answer 18 October 2012
	I have had no such discussions.
	However, in 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), set up a Ministerial Working Group on tackling Gypsy and Traveller inequalities, which included Ministers responsible for health and education issues. The Working Group published a progress report in April 2012, setting out 28 commitments from across government, including a number relating to health and education.
	The report can be found at:
	http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/mwgreporttravellers

Children

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Child Support Agency makes provision to allow children to be away on school trips organised by recognised youth groups; whether such nights away are counted towards nights when the non-resident parent has custody; and if he will make a statement.

Steve Webb: In the current legislation the purpose of the allowance for shared care is to recognise the additional costs that a parent will incur when they provide overnight care for their child or children by means of a reduction in the amount they are required to pay.
	The definition of shared care for child support purposes is defined in legislation—Regulation 7(1) Child Support Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases Regulations 2000—and relates to the provision of night-time care.
	If the child is away on holiday or a school trip, the award of a shared care reduction will only apply if care over the period of the trip or holiday has been provided by the non-resident parent, that care was provided overnight, and that both child and parent were at the same address.
	Where the reduction is applied, the amount of maintenance payable is reduced pro-rata by the number of nights per week the child stays with the non-resident parent, provided that they share overnight care of the child(ren) for at least 52 nights a year.
	However it remains open to all parents, including those currently using the CSA, to make their own family-based child maintenance arrangement on whatever terms they can agree between themselves. Child Maintenance Options can provide free support to parents to help them do this.

Disability Living Allowance

Stephen McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of people in receipt of disability living allowance died in 2011.

Esther McVey: The information requested is in the following table:
	
		
			  Number/percentage 
			 Total number of claimants in receipt of DLA who died in 2011 86,020 
			 Number of DLA claimants in 2011 3,450,360 
			 Proportion of DLA claimants who died in 2011 (percentage) 2.5 
			 Notes: 1. DWP administrative data from the Work and Pensions Longitudinal Survey and National Benefits Database. 2. Data is only available until November 2011.

Employment

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will commission a survey into the labour force to obtain further detailed information on (a) the latest employment figures, (b) the number of recently employed people who are in (i) part-time and (ii) temporary work and (c) the number of recently-employed people who were previously in receipt of a pension.

Mark Hoban: I do not believe a further survey would represent an efficient use of Government resources. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) already runs the Labour Force Survey which is the largest household survey in the UK covering around 45 thousand households. That survey provides information on employment, unemployment, and inactivity, including levels of part-time and temporary work, on a timely and regular basis. It also includes information on length of time with current employer and age.
	Its primary use is to show point in time estimates of the number of people involved in different activities within the labour market. Useful information can be obtained from changes in the aggregate numbers over time, but it is less appropriate for looking at flows of people between labour market statuses. ONS publish experimental statistics on flows between employment, unemployment and economic activity as an aid to understanding the movements in the published Labour Force Survey aggregate estimates, although they are not suitable as labour market indicators in their own right. ONS do not consider data to be of sufficient quality to provide reliable estimates of flows between more detailed states such as part-time or temporary employment.
	Further to this, the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), which is part funded by Government, allows us to analyse relationships between working and drawing a pension among the 50+ in England. In addition to ELSA, the Wealth and Assets Survey will also provide information about those that have re-entered the work force after beginning to draw a private pension in Great Britain when additional waves of data are available.

Jobcentre Plus

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department has issued guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff on the circumstances in which they should seek emergency assistance for a member of the public who requires medical assistance (a) while on his Department's premises and (b) within a short distance of such premises.

Mark Hoban: DWP has procedures in place for provision of first aid to members of the public while on our premises. Our first aid guidance has recently been updated and includes guidance on seeking emergency assistance.
	These specific arrangements and obligations do not extend beyond our premises. However, there are no rules that prevent our staff from helping any individual who needs medical assistance in the vicinity of our premises.

Work Capability Assessment

Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the evidence he has for the assertion by the hon. Member for Fareham on BBC Radio 4's The World At One on 11 October 2012 that claimants are withholding medical evidence during their work capability assessments until the appeals stage of the assessment.

Mark Hoban: There was no suggestion made that claimants are deliberately withholding medical evidence, but we would like encourage claimants to gather the right medical information quickly to support their claim. Evidence from the President's Report, Social Entitlement Chamber:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/social-security-and-child-support/publications/president-report-2008-09.pdf
	suggests that tribunals were given additional evidence not available to the DWP decision-maker in 65% of cases.
	One of the main reasons for introducing the ‘mandatory reconsideration’ process is that when a claimant queries a DWP decision, they will be given an explanation and helped to identify any additional evidence that could change the decision to enable DWP to ensure that all claimants receive the benefits to which they are entitled at the earliest opportunity.

Construction: Standards

Frank Doran: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he has made on the review of Government Construction Standards; and when the Review is expected to report.

Chloe Smith: The Government Construction Strategy One Year On Report confirms that the Government Construction Standards (incorporating the Common Minimum Standards) were refreshed in autumn 2011. We are currently reviewing the Government Construction Standards and the work is on track for consideration at the Government Construction Board's December meeting. Publication will follow in due course.
	The Common Minimum Standards can be found at:
	http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/CMS-for-publication-v1-2.pdf

Emergencies: Planning

John Mann: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what information his Department holds on differences in protocol for emergency disaster planning at sporting stadia when the disaster was (a) inside and (b) outside the stadium.

Chloe Smith: The ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds’, published by DCMS, advises that ground management should assess the risk of any incident occurring at a sports ground which might prejudice spectator safety, or disrupt normal operations, and produce contingency plans to provide a structured and graduated response inside the stadium to such incidents which take account of both the internal and external factors specific to the sports ground. Although the contingency plans are prepared by ground management the guide recommends that there should be consultation with the emergency services to ensure that the contingency plans are compatible with any emergency procedures outside the stadium for dealing with a major incident required under the Civil Contingencies Act 1975.
	Although the ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds’ has no statutory force many of its recommendations will be made statutory at individual grounds by their inclusion in safety certificates issued under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 or the Fire Safety and safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. The advice on drawing up contingency plans in the ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds’ has been supplemented by further detailed advice published by the Sports Grounds Safety Authority in their publication ‘Safety Management’.

Government Departments: Buildings

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office with reference to his recent agreement on the lease of Admiralty Arch, whether he plans to reach such agreements for other Government buildings; and what estimate he has made of the likely net proceeds that would arise.

Chloe Smith: The civil estate is kept continually under review and we report regularly on changes.
	The Cabinet Office's preference is to consolidate government operations into freehold space where that is practical and cost-effective. Freehold buildings which are no longer required for government use should generally be sold. Since 2010 we have generated over £640 million from the sale of more than 250 freeholds. In some exceptional cases, such as Admiralty Arch, we will retain freeholds of space which we are not using while selling a lease.

Procurement

Michael Connarty: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what his policy is on the commissioning of services by non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Hurd: As with all public bodies we expect non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies to take an intelligent approach to commissioning services from the most appropriate provider. Intelligent commissioning is a crucial element of high quality public services and this is why we are establishing a Commissioning Academy which is being piloted and will formally launch next year.

Deficit Reduction

Andrew Selous: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the wealthiest contribute most to deficit reduction.

David Gauke: The Government is committed to a fair tax system in which those with the most contribute the most. The UK's tax system is a progressive one and wealthy individuals make a substantial contribution to the Exchequer. The Government has increased this contribution in a number of ways since the election.

Job Creation: Private Sector

Caroline Nokes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector.

Danny Alexander: Despite these tough economic times, under this Government private sector employment has increased by over a million since 2010.
	The Government are continuing to support private sector growth through a radical programme of reforms and investment including the £2.4 billion regional growth fund, the £1.2 billion Business Finance Partnership access-to-finance scheme and reducing corporation tax to 22% by 2014.
	The Government are helping the long-term unemployed return to work. The £3-5 billion Work programme will support 2.4 million people by 2017.

Mining: Takeovers

John McDonnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the regulations on reverse takeovers issued by the Financial Services Authority apply to mining companies listed on the London Stock Exchange; and what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the regulations.

Greg Clark: The regulations on reverse takeovers issued by the Financial Services Authority in October 2012 apply to all companies with a premium listing, a standard listing of shares or a standard listing of certificates representing equity securities. This would capture mining companies who have such a listing.
	The effect of the regulations is a matter for the Financial Services Authority (FSA), whose day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. The FSA has provided a cost benefit analysis in its consultation paper ‘CP12/2 Amendments to the Listing Rules, Prospectus Rules, Disclosure Rules and Transparency Rules’, which is accessible from:
	http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/FsaWeb/Shared/Documents/pubs/cp/cp12_02.pdf

PAYE

Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contingency plans are in place to mitigate any potential problems with the implementation of his Department's real-time information reporting system.

David Gauke: HMRC are front loading the migration of employers onto the Real Time Information (RTI) system. This means that most employers, who are not involved in the RTI pilot, will join RTI in April 2013. There will be six months to resolve issues for employers or HMRC before the Department for Work and Pensions starts to roll out universal credit. Universal credit will be phased in over four years and there will be facilities for individuals to self report their income in the event of problems with the real time reporting system.

Tax Avoidance

Michael Meacher: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government has taken to monitor and enforce the principle set out in Annex 4.4.16 of the 2007 Treasury document, Managing Public Money, that central Government bodies should restrict contractors' use of offshore jurisdictions, consistent with EU and other international obligations and the Government's stated objectives on tax transparency and openness, to avoid harmful tax competition; how many violations of this principle have taken place in each of the last five years; and what penalties were imposed in each such case.

Danny Alexander: One of the main concepts in Managing Public Money is that every central Government public body should have an accounting officer who is personally responsible for the standards and conduct of their organisation. As it is the individual accounting officers who are responsible for managing their dealings with contractors, detailed monitoring of their decisions and circumstances is not undertaken.
	It would be prohibitively expensive to find out how many violations of the principles identified in the question had occurred as it would require writing to every public sector body individually to review their records. Although there is no penalty regime specifically aimed at this area; contractor risks losing the specific contract.
	As part of a review of procurement and tax, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Cabinet Office have been charged to come up with a workable solution to address the issue of tax avoidance by companies holding Government contracts and will set out more details later this year.

Lung Diseases

Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out into the threat posed by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Daniel Poulter: The Department's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is currently funding a range of research relating to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme is funding a systematic review of evidence on the benefits, harms and costs of treatments for IPF. The review began in May 2012 and is expected to report in mid 2014. Results will be helpful to patients and carers and also to health care professionals treating IPF. In addition the NIHR is funding two one-year biomedical research fellowships studying IPF.

Midwives

Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of midwifery graduates went on to work as midwives in 2010-11.

Daniel Poulter: The Department does not collect this information. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) are the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about higher education.
	The contact details for HESA can be viewed at:
	www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/2/52/

Midwives: Training

Anne McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students were enrolled on midwifery courses in (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011 and (d) 2012.

Daniel Poulter: Enrolment figures are not collected by the Department. However we do collect information on numbers of training places commissioned each year.
	Strategic health authorities are responsible for commissioning midwifery training places. The actual number of training places commissioned in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are in the following table. The planned number of commissions for 2012-13 is also included in the table.
	
		
			 Midwifery training commissions 2009-12 
			  Midwifery commissions 
			 2009-10 2,482 
			 2010-11 2,488 
			 2011-12 2,484 
			 2012-13 (plan) 2,578 
			 Note: The figures include both degree and 18 month diploma courses. Source: Multi professional education and training quarterly monitoring returns.

NHS: Drugs

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total NHS expenditure on (a) cardiac drugs and (b) cancer drugs was in each of the last three years.

Norman Lamb: The cost to the national health service of medicines termed as "cardiac drugs" and “cancer drugs” over the period 2009 to 2011 is provided as follows. This is separated into the cost of prescriptions issued for primary care and the cost of medicines used in secondary medical care, due to differences in the way that the data are collected and recorded.
	
		
			 Primary care: Net ingredient cost of prescription items written in the United Kingdom and dispensed, in the community, in England 
			 £ million 
			  British National Formulary (BNF) chapter 2, Cardiovascular System (1) BNF chapter 8, Malignant disease and immunosuppression  (2, 3) 
			 2009 1,627.3 342.3 
			 2010 1,513.0 339.4 
			 2011 1,351.3 315.9 
			 (1) The term “cardiac drugs” is interpreted as medicines classified by BNF chapter 2, Cardiovascular System. This includes drugs for hypertension and anticoagulation and other areas which might or might not be regarded as “cardiac.” (2) The term “cancer drugs” is interpreted as medicines classified by BNF chapter 8, Malignant disease and immunosuppression. There may be medicines classified elsewhere in the BNF also having an application in cancer treatment. (3) Includes medicines funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Source: Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system supplied by the NHS Information Centre. 
		
	
	
		
			 Secondary care: Estimated cost of medicines supplied by hospital pharmacies in England (1, 2) 
			 £ million 
			  WHO ATC Group C—Cardiovascular system WHO ATC Group L—Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (3) 
			 2009 63.2 1,245.1 
			 2010 61.6 1,424.7 
			 2011 60.7 1,630.2 
			 (1) Data cover pharmacies in 97% of hospitals in English with acute beds. These figures include some care commissioned from homecare companies who deliver the medicines to patients in their own homes, however, some spend may be missed. (2) The medicine classification used is the World Health Organisation's Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (WHO ATC) classification system. As with primary care, the classification groups may not be fully comprehensive of all medicines used to treat cardiovascular conditions and cancer. (3) Includes medicines funded through the Cancer Drugs Fund. Source: IMS HEALTH: Hospital Pharmacy Audit supplied by the NHS Information Centre.

NHS: Drugs

Kevin Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the Medicines Supply Chain Forum has met since 15 May 2012; and on how many such occasions it has discussed medicines shortages.

Norman Lamb: The Department's Medicines Supply Chain Group has met twice since 15 May 2012. Medicines shortages were discussed at both these meetings.

NHS: Lobbying

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the employment by the NHS of lobbyists and public relations companies, who are also employed by pharmaceutical companies to promote their products to the NHS.

Daniel Poulter: National health service bodies are responsible and accountable for decisions on the employment of their medical, non medical staff and contractors. Model standing financial instructions and standing orders issued by the Department for use by NHS bodies place a duty to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in regard to any services commissioned or procured.

NHS: Redundancy

Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of redundancy of staff in the NHS has been since May 2010.

Daniel Poulter: Information on redundancy costs is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the following table:
	
		
			 Compulsory redundancies and other departures for primary care trusts (PCTs), strategic health authorities (SHAs) and national health service trusts for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 
			 £000 
			 Category 2010-11 2011-12 
			 Compulsory redundancies 87,747 83,106 
			 Other departures 131,898 91,589 
			 Notes: 1. “Other departures” include early retirements (except those due to ill health), voluntary redundancies, Mutually Agreed Resignation scheme, pay in lieu of notice etc. 2. Voluntary redundancies are not separately identifiable from other departures; therefore, an overall figure for redundancies is not available. 
		
	
	The figures reported in the accounts are for a full financial year (i.e. between 1 April and 31 March). As such, we are unable to provide a breakdown of the cost associated with exit packages solely since May 2010.
	The data are taken from the audited summarisation schedules of PCTs, SHAs and NHS trusts, which are used to prepare the NHS elements of the Department's annual report and accounts. The figures reported represent the total resource cost of compulsory redundancies and other departures for staff leaving their organisation during the year. The expense associated with these departures may have been recognised in part or in full in a previous period.
	The Department does not collect data from NHS foundation trusts. Where an NHS trust obtains foundation trust status part way through any year, the data provided is only for the part of the year the organisation operated as an NHS trust.

NHS: Training

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training he requires NHS staff to undertake to ensure they behave in a courteous, considerate and respectful manner to patients at all times.

Daniel Poulter: Every national health service service provider has an obligation to their patients as part of their Care Quality Commission registration requirements to ensure people should be cared for by staff, who are properly qualified and able to do their job.
	All NHS organisations should adhere to the NHS Values outlined in the NHS constitution. The constitution states that organisations should provide the highest standards of excellence and professionalism in the provision of high-quality care that is safe, effective and focused on patient experience and in the people it employs and the education, training and development they receive.

School Milk

Nicholas Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that it will remain possible for milk to be delivered to early years settings after the review of the nursery milk scheme; and whether the cost of delivery is included in the price paid for milk by his Department.

Daniel Poulter: The Department's consultation on The Next Steps for Nursery Milk ended on 23 October.
	Our intention is to continue the scheme as a universal benefit. None of the proposals in the consultation involve a change in the amount of milk provided, or to the age, or to the number of children eligible to receive it.
	The Nursery Milk Scheme will continue to reimburse child care providers for the full cost of purchasing milk they provide, free of charge, to eligible children in their care.

Specialised Healthcare Alliance

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many NHS committees and advisory groups the Specialist Healthcare Alliance (SHA) has representation on; and who represents the SHA on those committees and groups;
	(2)  how many meetings his officials have had with the Specialist Healthcare Alliance (SHA) in the last 12 months; and who represented the SHA at those meetings;
	(3)  pursuant to the answer of 12 July 2011, Official Report, columns 305-6W, to the hon. Member for Wells, on the Specialised Services Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group, for what reasons the Specialised Healthcare Alliance was chosen to represent patients; what the name is of each representative of the Specialist Healthcare Alliance who sits on the Specialised Services Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group; and which organisation each such person represents.

Anna Soubry: No information is available centrally on the national health service committees and advisory groups which have representatives of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance (SHCA).
	In the last 12 months from October 2011 to October 2012 there have been two meetings between departmental officials within the policy team for specialised services and the SHCA. These meetings have been part of normal departmental business in engaging with a key stakeholder in the field of rare diseases. On both occasions the SHCA was represented by John Murray. He was accompanied by Andrew Wilkinson to one of the meetings.
	The SHCA was chosen to represent patients on the Specialised Services Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group because it represents over 80 patient-related organisations to which it is accountable. John Murray was the representative of the SHCA.

Nuclear Power

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what information he has received from the Office for Nuclear Regulation on its review of the strategic oversight of nuclear safety and security-related research, and its arrangements for commissioning and managing research and specialist technical support.

John Hayes: The Office for Nuclear Regulation's (ONR) review, and the development of their research and technical support strategy, has been taking place alongside of (and has informed) the development of the Government's own long-term strategy for civil nuclear power and an associated nuclear R and D capabilities programme.
	The ONR’s is working to establish a Chief Inspector's Independent Advisory Group, whose role will include advising HM Chief Nuclear Inspector on the adequacy and balance of ONR's research strategy and programme, as well as further developing the regulatory Nuclear Research Index (NRI), which represents ONR's view of what research is needed to support existing nuclear facilities.
	The outputs from the Government's Nuclear R and D capabilities programme are expected around the end of the year.

Nuclear Power

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what activities have been undertaken by the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group over the last three years; whether reports of its activities are published; and if he will publish its agreed future work programme.

John Hayes: The G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group (NSSG) was established at the 2002 Kananaskis G8 summit and is responsible to G8 leaders for providing technically informed strategic policy advice on issues that could impact safety and security in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, the focus of the NSSG is very clearly on nuclear safety rather than security.
	In 2012, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the objective of achieving the highest levels of safety and a culture of continuous improvement to nuclear safety. This approach was also adopted by the US presidency, who made G8 influence on the delivering the IAEA’s action plan on nuclear safety a key priority.
	It is for G8 presidency states to set the objectives during their presidency, therefore there is no formal forward work plan. However, successive states have sought to ensure the delivery of the IAEA action plan rather than undertake new parallel activities. Under the UK presidency in 2013, the NSSG will have three main objectives:
	(i) To continue the work of delivering the IAEA action plan with a focus on the commitment to seeking continuous improvement to nuclear safety standards.
	(ii) To deliver agreement across G8 members on improving their co-ordination in the planning for and response to a nuclear emergency,
	(iii) To co-ordinate the G8 position on the outcome of an August 2012 extra-ordinary meeting of the Convention on nuclear safety in August 2012 which focused on amending the Convention and/or its rules and procedures.
	Each G8 presidency state produces a summary document of the action G8 states are committed to taking that forms part of the official documentation of the presidency—the following links are to the documentation produced by the French and US presidencies:
	http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/the-2011-summit/declarations-and-reports/appendices/report-of-the-nuclear-safety-and-security-group.1355.html
	http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/05/21/g8-nuclear-safety-and-security/

Planning

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many chartered town planners are employed by his Department.

Gregory Barker: None. The Department employs a number of staff with many years experience in infrastructure planning, some of whom are working towards Chartered Town Planner.

Adult Education

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the results of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education's annual survey of adult participation in learning in 2012.

Matthew Hancock: holding answer 5 November 2012
	We welcome the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) survey report and we recognise the patterns of adult learning which are similar to our own analysis. We recognise that some groups of people are less likely to learn than others, so we are pleased to have NIACE supporting our new Community Learning Trust pilots which give providers the freedom, flexibility and support to engage more people in learning, especially those groups we know are less likely to learn.
	We agree with NIACE that the first step into adult learning is often the hardest, especially for those who did not flourish at school. We have maintained the Community Learning budget and provision for Basic Skills which funds the courses that are often the first step on the ladder for disadvantaged groups; getting them into learning, helping them support their children and preparing them for work. Alongside our policies to support individuals we acknowledge that employers are a vital source of training for many people. We are supporting employers to train their work force through apprenticeships and these continue to increase at a record rate. We are also supporting employers through Employer Ownership pilots. The pilots will enable employers to test different ways of undertaking the training they need to improve productivity and increase the level of employer investment in training.

Arms Trade: Exports

Gavin Shuker: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his Department makes an assessment of whether weaponry is likely to be used in Kashmir before issuing a defence export licence.

Michael Fallon: All export licences for military goods are assessed on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. An export licence will not be issued if the decision is not consistent with the criteria. Assessments of export licence applications for military goods to India and Pakistan will take account of the continuing tensions over Kashmir.
	The following criteria are relevant:
	Criterion 2
	The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination. A licence will not be issued if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression;
	Criterion 3
	The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions or armed conflicts. The Government will not issue export licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination;
	Criterion 4
	Preservation of regional peace, security and stability. The Government will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim.

Billing

Chuka Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days.

Jo Swinson: In the period from April to September 2012 the Department paid 90.5% of invoices within five working days. For information, details of the departmental monthly prompt performance is published at:
	http://www.bis.gov.uk/about/procurement/prompt-payment/bis-payment-performance
	I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies to respond directly to the hon. Member.
	Letter from Tim Moss, dated 2 November 2012
	I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary Question tabled 1 November 2012, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, UIN 127001.
	The proportion of undisputed invoices Companies House pays within five working days is 99.6%.
	Letter from Dr Richard Judge, dated 2 November 2012
	The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked me to reply to your question what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and his agencies pay within five days.
	The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of The Department for Business Innovation and Skills, has paid 71% of undisputed invoices within 5 days between April and September 2012. 76% of undisputed invoices were paid within 5 days in the financial year 2011/12.
	Overall prompt payment performance is published in our Annual Report and Accounts which is reproduced here together with performance between April and September 2012.
	
		
			 Percentage 
			  Financial year 
			  2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 (1) 
			 30 days 99 99 99 99 99 98 
			 8 days 88 90 90 90 90 88 
			 (1 )To September. 
		
	
	Letter from Sean Dennehey, dated 5 November 2012
	I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled 1 November 2012, to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	The Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has paid 91% of undisputed invoices between April and September 2012.
	The last full year in 2011/12 had a performance of 87% and we continue to monitor and improve our performance.
	Letter from Peter Mason, dated 5 November 2012
	I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office (NMO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 1 November 2012, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days.
	The NMO pays undisputed invoices twice a week. In the financial year of 2011-12, 58.6% of undisputed invoices were paid within five days of receipt of invoice. In 2010-11, the corresponding figure was 58.9%. These figures are calculated from the date that NMO receives the invoice from the supplier until the date that the money is paid into the supplier's bank account.
	Letter from Kim Thorneywork, dated 6 November 2012
	Thank you for your question in asking the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days.
	Please be advised The Skills Funding Agency paid 74.9% of its 12,194 invoices, including disputed invoices, within five days during the year April 2011 to March 2012. These are the most recent audited figures. The Skills Funding Agency does not hold separate information for undisputed invoices.
	Letter from Dr Vanessa Lawrence CB, dated 5 November 2012
	As Director General and Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey, I have been asked to reply to you in response to your Parliamentary Question asking The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills “what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days.”
	Ordnance Survey, as the national mapping agency of Great Britain, is a Department in its own right with Executive Agency Status operating as a government Trading Fund. It reports to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	Information held on recent payment timescales indicates that since the start of Financial Year 2012-12 Ordnance Survey's monthly record of payment of undisputed invoices within five days has varied between 32% and 75% of such invoices. The monthly average figure year to date for 2012-13 is 56%.
	The equivalent average figure for the three months from August to October 2012 is 70.33%.
	I hope this information is of use.
	Letter from David Williams, dated 2 November 2012
	Thank you for your question addressed to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days. (127001).
	Current data shows that the UK Space Agency has paid 95% of undisputed invoices within 5 days.
	Letter from John Hirst, dated 5 November 2012
	I am replying on behalf of the Met Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 1 November 2012, UIN 127001 to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	During 2011-12, the Met Office paid 81.7% of undisputed invoices received from UK suppliers within five working days.
	I hope this helps.
	Letter from Heather Foster
	I write on behalf of Land Registry in response to Parliamentary Question 127001 tabled on 1 Nov 2012 which asked the following:
	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what proportion of undisputed invoices his Department and its agencies pay within five days.
	Our Finance Group have a KPI target to pay 80% of undisputed invoices within five days. Our most recent figures (YTD August 2012) show that we have achieved a figure of 95.3%.
	I hope this information is useful

Exports

Chuka Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what targets (a) he and (b) his Department's officials have set as part of the Government's aim to increase the number of businesses exporting by 2020.

Michael Fallon: The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, in his March 2012 Budget, a target for the UK to increase the value of its exports to £1 trillion per year by 2020.
	In support of this the Government has also announced, as part of a National Export Challenge, an ambition to get 100,000 companies exporting each year by 2020. This significant shift will bring the percentage of UK companies exporting in line with the EU average.
	UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the Government department that helps UK-based companies succeed in the global economy and assists overseas companies to bring their high-quality investment to the UK, is committed to doubling to 50,000 the number of UK businesses that it supports each year, by 2015.
	But the Government cannot drive this alone. More needs to be done within the business support community; hence UKTI is undertaking significant work with business support organisations like the chambers of commerce and business intermediaries and other partners, such professional groups (e.g. law firms, accountants and banks) who, through their close association with UK firms, can play an important part in encouraging these firms to pursue growth through exports.

Maternity Leave

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he has taken to encourage women on maternity leave to return to work.

Jo Swinson: This Government are committed to being the most family-friendly ever. We support the right of women to choose when they feel ready to return to work after maternity leave. We are creating an environment where women and families have greater choice in how they manage their work and family commitments during the first year, which is why we continued with the introduction of additional paternity leave in April 2011, and consulted on introducing flexible parental leave in May 2011.
	These changes give families more choice over how they manage the childcare and enable women to return to work when they feel it is appropriate to do so. According to the Maternity and Paternity Rights and Women Returners Survey 2009/10, 76% of women now return to work following maternity leave.
	We also consulted on extending the right to request flexible working to all employees in order to give all employees including mothers the ability to vary their working patterns to accommodate both work and family responsibilities.
	The Government will publish its report to the modern workplaces consultation shortly.

National Skills Academy for Nuclear

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness of 30 October 2012, Official Report, columns 188-9W, on nuclear power, what monies from the Growth and Innovation Fund have been provided to date in support of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear (NSAN) backing for the National Nuclear Gateway; and what plans he has to provide additional financial support to NSAN from the public purse.

Michael Fallon: The National Skills Academy (NSA) for Nuclear has received funding for two major projects through the Growth and Innovation Fund.
	In 2011 the Growth and Innovation Fund provided a £0.9 million investment to extend the remit of the NSA to deliver a specific skills training system for manufacturing within the nuclear sector, particularly focused on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the supply chain.
	In 2012 the Commission for Employment and Skills agreed a £2 million investment to help develop the National Nuclear Gateway. The commission's investment will be matched by £1.7 million of employer contribution.
	In addition, a Growth and Innovation Fund investment of £1.07 million has supported Cogent, the Sector Skills body with responsibility for Nuclear to take forward key strands of activity to include the development of a workforce planning model (WPM); to extend training frameworks to the nuclear supply chain and to create a nuclear specific work experience programme.
	“Skills for Sustainable Growth” set out the Governments ambition for a demand-led skills system. The Growth and Innovation Fund, and more recently the Employer Ownership of Skills pilot programme were established as contestable funds able to help employers overcome barriers to raising skills in sectors. We expect the NSA, in line with Sector Skills Councils and other employer groups, to bid into the available funds when they are able to develop specific projects able to make a key difference to the nuclear skills challenge.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 719W, on Bangladesh, what the methodological changes were; what the common approach is to attributing results of her Department's projects; and whether new data has emerged since the original Operational Plan which changes the baseline on which targets were based.

Alan Duncan: The methodological change was to adopt a common approach to attributing results to DFID spending, across all DFID country offices. The approach takes a share of each programme's results based on DFID's financial share of the programme's total budget. This enables DFID to aggregate its results across countries.
	New data have emerged since the original Operational Plan was published which change the baseline for the governance and security targets. Full details of the changes and the reasons for them are published in the Operational Plan for DFID Bangladesh.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 729W, on Bangladesh, whether her Department has any mid-project outcomes; whether it engages in the auditing process or advises on how to audit; through which Bangladeshi Government Department the project is being implemented; and what criteria her Department has used to measure how successful the programme has been.

Alan Duncan: Started in October 2009, the Strengthening Public Expenditure Programme (SPEMP) in Bangladesh is made up of three main components. The largest component, on Budgeting and Accounting, works with the Finance Division in the Ministry of Finance. A second component on Audit works with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (OCAG). The final component works with the Parliament Secretariat, in support of three Parliamentary Committees responsible for oversight of the budget and expenditure. Funds are channelled through a World Bank Trust Fund.
	The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (OCAG) conducts independent audits of the public accounts. Technical support to OCAG is being provided by the firm PKF (Europe), working with the UK National Audit Office (NAO) and the UK accounting institute CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy). NAO will work with OCAG to carry out up to 20 pilot audits to show OCAG personnel how to apply improved approaches to the audit of government expenditure.
	The criteria used to assess the progress of the project are contained in a results framework agreed with the Bangladesh Government, the World Bank and other donors. Detailed indicators measure:
	Improvements in strategic policy and budget management, in particular the adoption of medium term budgeting by line ministries;
	Improvements to IT systems for accounting and financial reporting;
	Numbers of officials receiving technical training, and the development of improved training facilities within the Government of Bangladesh;
	Improved quality of audit reports, and a more timely response to them by line ministries;
	More systematic and timely scrutiny of audit reports by the Public Accounts Committee and two other committees, and improved reporting by these Committees to Parliament and the public.
	Progress to date includes rolling out a Medium Term Budget Framework (MTBF) in all 57 target line Ministries and Departments, better documentation of the strategy underlying Ministries' budgets, and improvements to an integrated Budget and Accounting System (IT) to enable the production of more timely and accurate financial reports. The project will help the Public Accounts Committee to further reduce the backlog of audit reports awaiting review. In the last year the Committee has reviewed 350 reports and settled 5,550 objections, some dating back 10 years or more.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 721W, on Bangladesh, what the breakdown was of the project's costs; how many interactive TV and radio sessions were held; how many Bangladeshi citizens asked decision-makers questions; and whether there was any screening of Bangladeshis calling into shows to ensure political balance.

Alan Duncan: The Sanglap II project ran from November 2006 to January 2010. Its total cost was £4,971,000. Of this, approximately 48% was spent on the programmes, 11% to produce and test a pilot mobile phone application, 8% on marketing and audience recruitment, 4% on public broadcasting activities, 10% on training and office costs, 5% on monitoring and evaluation and 14% on management costs.
	Over the three years, 138 Bangladesh Sanglap TV programmes were recorded, 138 follow-up radio phone-ins were held, and 10 pilots of ‘This Week in Parliament’ were prepared.
	Bangladesh Sanglap was a local Bangla language version of "Question Time". On average, 120 people participated in each programme as the studio audience. Each weekly episode was followed by a radio phone-in programme, where on average 10 people were able to give their opinion. Altogether about 30 people had the chance to ask a question or give an opinion per episode, giving an approximate total of 4,140 people overall.
	The audience of each programme was selected to ensure political balance, and a balance of men and women, different ages and socioeconomic groups. Each Sanglap panel had four members: one from the ruling party, one from the main opposition party, one from a third party and one from wider society. The questions from the audience were selected following BBC editorial guidelines. The TV programmes were broadcast in the period before and after Bangladesh's national elections in December 2008. The project ended in 2010.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 718W, on Bangladesh, where the children in hazardous work were withdrawn to; by what means the project ensures workers in the shrimp and garment industry get paid on time; by what means the project helps boys and girls obtain stipends; and what evaluation was made of the cost per child of obtaining such stipends.

Alan Duncan: The children withdrawn from hazardous work in Bangladesh were moved to both mainstream and non-formal education, and in some cases provided with vocational training. Families were given training to help them build alternative livelihoods that didn't rely on household income generated by their children. This training was focused on generating an income from such activities as livestock-rearing, fisheries, poultry, weaving, tailoring.
	Those employed within the shrimp and garment industries are provided with training on how to form an organised group and bargain collectively with their employers so that they are paid on time. In addition, the Manusher Jonno Foundation and partner NGOs participate in organised discussions with factory management and the Ministry of Labour to help promote punctual salary payments. The Manusher Jonno Foundation is also engaged in the negotiation of a minimum wage for the shrimp and garments industry.
	Stipends to encourage school attendance are provided by Government through schools. The NGOs, who partner with the Manusher Jonno Foundation, give parents information on their entitlement to stipends and how they can be accessed. The NGOs then follow this up by helping arrange for parents (especially mothers) and community leaders to ask members of school management committees and parent teachers associations, and government primary education officers, when stipends will be paid, and to whom. The Manusher Jonno Foundation tracks the number of students who obtain stipends in this way. It doesn't, however, evaluate the cost per child of obtaining stipends.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 718W, on Bangladesh, what the competitive process is through which funds are awarded; and whether her Department audits the funding stream as it passes through the different levels of organisations.

Alan Duncan: The funds which are awarded by the Manusher Jonno Foundation are given through an open and competitive process. Proposals are called for through the national daily newspapers and their websites. Proposals received are judged against criteria including relevance to programme objectives, results and benefits, innovation, scalability, financial management, sustainability and impact Selection is done jointly by management and the governing board of the Manusher Jonno Foundation.
	The funding stream is audited by a Bangladeshi independent chartered accounting firm (affiliated with Ernst and Young), directly reporting to the chairman of the board. This is verified by a qualified auditor during the annual review process led by DFID. DFID also audits a random selection of grant recipients annually. Around 20% of grant recipients are covered in the process.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 731W, on Bangladesh, what the fiduciary irregularities were that caused the programme to be cancelled; what evaluation there was of the work done before the programme was cancelled; whether any corruption was found to have taken place in the delivery of this project; and what subsequent actions were taken by the Bangladeshi government and UK Government.

Alan Duncan: The programme, which terminated in 2009, was cancelled due to fiduciary irregularities including non-compliance with procurement procedures; contract management and quality control procedures. For example, some payments were made by the Bangladesh Roads and Highways Department for work which was not completed to the required specification.
	DFID appointed Ernst and Young to carry out independent internal audits in December 2005 and site audits started in May 2006. DFID also commissioned an audit of the physical condition of the roads in 2005. In addition, a Fiduciary Risk Assessment carried out by DFID in 2006 assessed the risks of budget support being misused as medium to high.
	The response of the Bangladesh Roads and Highways Department did not improve the standard of work or address the range of irregularities significantly. DFID suspended further payments of budget support under the programme in April 2007. Following a further Fiduciary Risk Assessment in September 2007, which further raised the risk rating, DFID Ministers cancelled the programme:

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answers of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 726-8W and 23 October 2012, Official Report, columns 784-6W, on Bangladesh, how many people's livelihoods the economic empowerment of the poorest project is intended to improve.

Alan Duncan: The Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme (2008-15) aims to enable 1 million people to lift themselves out of extreme poverty. The programme supports poor people in Bangladesh to increase their incomes through acquiring assets such as livestock, establishing small businesses, and receiving skills training.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 726-8W, on Bangladesh, what representations she has received on creating a central list of sub-contractors; and whether her Department compares the outcomes of (a) contractors and (b) sub-contractors.

Alan Duncan: As previously stated, DFID does not currently maintain a central database of sub-contracts or contractors. Since the primary responsibility for overall contract performance rests with the lead contractor there has not been a clear business requirement to create such a central record.
	In terms of comparing the outcomes of each, this would be captured in the project logframe agreed between DFID and the primary contractor, to set output and outcome targets for the project as a whole, to which all sub-contractors contribute. It is the responsibility of the primary contractor to monitor the performance of their sub-contractors closely, and DFID holds them to account on this.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether any of her Department's partners have been affected by the action of the Bangladeshi Government in revoking charity licences in the last three years.

Alan Duncan: The Government of Bangladesh revoked the charity license of one partner of DFID namely Bangladesh Centre for Workers Solidarity (BCWS) in 2010 which received funding from Manusher Jonno Foundation.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, what criteria were used to decide who received the emergency cash transfers.

Alan Duncan: The transfers were provided to households that were displaced or left stranded by flood waters and with no access to food, but excluded those households who were receiving regular adequate income or assistance from another source.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, columns 730-1W, on Bangladesh, how the emergency cash transfers were distributed.

Alan Duncan: All cash distributions were distributed in accordance with the World Food Programme's established cash transfer guidelines. The project implementers (Muslim Aid and Shushilan) shared information with beneficiaries to ensure they were fully aware of their entitlements. Each recipient (one per household) received a beneficiary ID card. These were presented and verified at the public distribution site and then the beneficiary received the cash transfer. Beneficiaries were required to sign or thumbprint the cash distribution register to confirm receipt of the full transfer. Local oversight committees of community representatives and Government officials, provided additional monitoring presence at the sites during the distributions.

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 22 October 2012, Official Report, column 720W, on Bangladesh, which Bangladeshi Government Departments the project is working with; how many Bangladeshi Government officials the project is training; and whether the project is delivering technical assistance.

Alan Duncan: The project is working with the Economic Relations Division of the Government of Bangladesh who are responsible for managing the processes for incoming foreign aid. The work extends to line ministries who are involved in supported by foreign aid programmes.
	The project is delivering technical assistance to build stronger aid management systems and greater capacity in government to manage and target aid flows. Future training is included in the project, in Bangladesh, to (a) build the skills of staff in line ministries to use the newly introduced Aid Information Management System, and (b) build knowledge and skills on improved aid co-ordination

Bangladesh

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2012 to the hon. Member for Enfield North, Official Report, column 717W, on Bangladesh, how civil servants were identified and selected for training; and how much is being spent on average to train each civil servant.

Alan Duncan: The civil servants selected to participate in the Public Service Capacity Building Programme are at the top levels of the civil service below the Permanent Secretary level. An Inter-ministerial Standing Selection Committee of the Government of Bangladesh selects training participants on the basis of selection criteria and guidelines agreed with DFID, which include:
	An upper age limit, to focus training on officials with at least seven years left before retirement.
	Proficiency in the English Language, which is tested by the British Council in Dhaka.
	Priority is given to eligible women officers, to encourage greater representation of women in the senior levels of the Bangladesh civil service.
	The average cost for a participant is approximately £4,300 for the training programme. The programme has targeted around 1,700 senior civil servants over seven years, with the aim of covering 74% of senior officers who are expected to reach Permanent Secretary level.

Developing Countries: Schools

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether BRAC or any other partners were given any criteria on the un-adopted schools they can fund.

Alan Duncan: DFID funds three partners providing primary education in Bangladesh: the Government of Bangladesh, BRAC (Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) and UCEP (Under-privileged Children's Education programme). This approach is complimentary to the Government's mainstream education system. BRAC and UCEP only target those children who are omitted from that system.
	There is no such official terminology as to ‘adopt’ schools in the Bangladesh education system. Rather, the government categories of primary schooling include: Government primary schools, registered non-government primary schools, experimental schools, community schools, non-registered non-government primary schools, kindergarten, NGO schools, primary sections of secondary schools, Ebtedayee madrasahs, and primary sections of high madrasahs (dakhil, alim, fazil, kamil).

Overseas Aid

Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the change of corruption levels affecting nations and regions benefiting from the UK aid budget since the 2011 review of that budget.

Alan Duncan: Measuring the level of corruption in a country is inherently problematic in view of its secretive nature. DFID offices use information from a combination of sources including: the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, the Global Integrity Index, data from the World Bank and other institutions.
	DFID programmes offer a wide array of assistance to strengthen the ability of countries to tackle both large scale and petty corruption. These include measures such as strengthening public procurement and audit, through to enabling civil society to hold their authorities to account.